Ex parte SPECTOR - Page 1




                    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          not binding precedent of the Board.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. 17              

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                     __________                                       
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                 AND INTERFERENCES                                    
                                     __________                                       
                               Ex parte DONALD SPECTOR                                
                                     __________                                       
                                 Appeal No. 98-1194                                   
                               Application 08/630,6691                                
                                     ___________                                      
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                     ___________                                      
          Before ABRAMS, PATE, and McQUADE, Administrative Patent                     
          Judges.                                                                     
          McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.                                       

                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               Donald Spector originally took this appeal from the final              
          rejection of claims 1 through 8.  Subsequently, the appellant               
          amended claim 1 and canceled 2 through 6.  Thus, the appeal                 
          now involves claims 1, 7 and 8, the only claims presently                   


               1Application for patent filed April 10, 1996.                          
                                          1                                           





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007