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publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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 JOHN F. GILGEN
__________
Appeal No. 1996-0876
Application 08/123,1441
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before CAROFF, HANLON and ELLIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ELLIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s second rejection of
claims 1 through 24, all the claims remaining in the application.
1Application for patent filed September 17, 1993.
2We have jurisdiction to consider this appeal since the appellant’s claims have
been “twice rejected” within the context of 35 U.S.C. § 134, even though the rejection
appealed from was not designated by the examiner as being final.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007