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for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte KENNETH R. SWARTZEL, HERSHELL R. BALL, JR.,
and MOHAMMAD-HOSSEIN HAMID-SAMIMI
____________
Appeal No. 1998-2941
Application No. 08/061,9851
Reexamination Control No. 90/003,6822
____________
HEARD: August 16, 1999
____________
Before McQUADE, NASE, and KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
NASE, Administrative Patent Judge.
1Application filed May 14, 1993, for reissue of U.S.
Patent No. 5,019,408 (Application No. 07/628,716, filed
December 17, 1990), which according to the appellants is
entitled under
35 U.S.C. § 120 to the benefit of the filing date of
Application No. 06/904,744, filed September 8, 1986, now U.S.
Patent No. 4,808,425.
2Reexamination for U.S. Patent No. 5,019,408. Request
for reexamination filed January 5, 1995. The reexamination
proceeding was merged with the above-noted reissue application
on June 26, 1995.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007