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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte CHARLES R. SPERRY, LAURENCE B. SPERRY, CRAIG E. ROBERT, MICHAEL J.
SECKLER, BRIAN K. FARISON and ABRAHAM N. REICHENTAL
__________
Appeal No. 97-2491
Application 08/514,0101
___________
HEARD: April 9, 1999
___________
Before CALVERT, STAAB, and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAAB, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the examiner’s final rejection of claims 33, 34 and 36-50,
all the claims then pending in the application. Subsequent to the final rejection, appellants filed an
1Application for patent filed August 11, 1995. According to the appellant, the application is a
continuation of Application 08/121,751, filed September 15, 1993, now abandoned, which is a
continuation of Application 07/843,609, filed February 28, 1992, now abandoned.
1
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007