THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte ROBERT BABROWICZ
______________
Appeal No. 1996-4036
Application 08/078,4791
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before JOHN D. SMITH, WARREN and SPIEGEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner finally rejecting
claims 1 through 26, which are all of the claims in the application.2
We have carefully considered the record before us, and based thereon, find that we cannot
sustain either of the grounds of rejection of claims 1 through 26 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) or 102(b)
1Application for patent filed June 22, 1993. According to appellant, this application is a continuation-
in-part of application 07/907,725, filed July 2, 1992, now abandoned.
2See specification, pages 20-23, the amendment of March 24, 1994 (Paper No. 5) and the
amendment of September 12, 1994 (Paper No. 7).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007