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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte DAVID J. DYER
_____________
Appeal No. 97-4455
Application 08/616,6051
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before ABRAMS, FRANKFORT and CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judges.
ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner finally rejecting claims 3-5 and 9. Claims 1
and 2 have been canceled, and claims 6-8 have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
No claims have been allowed. 2
1Application for patent filed March 15, 1996.
2Although the appellant stated on page 2 of the Brief that it was indicated that “newly proposed
claims 10-12 would be allowable,” it appears to us that these claims (Paper No. 7) were denied entry
by the examiner (Paper No. 8). This is borne out by the fact that they were not mentioned in the
1
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007