THIS OPINION IS NOT BINDING PRECEDENT OF THE BOARD.
Paper No. 33
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte PAUL J. LEMMON
and RAJ RAMANUJAN
____________
Appeal No. 1996-1235
Application No. 08/067,2621
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before STONER, Chief Administrative Patent Judge , and LEE and
TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judges.
TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
In this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final
rejection of claims 1-59, all of the pending claims, we reverse.
BACKGROUND
Procedural posture of the appeal
Appellants are under an order to show cause (Paper No. 31)
why their appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file a
timely reply to an order for compliance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(1)
and (c)(2) (Paper No. 29). Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) require
appellants to identify the real party-in-interest and any related
proceedings, respectively. The appeal brief was filed shortly
after the effective date of these paragraphs.
1 Filed 25 May 1993, claiming the benefit of application
no. 07/445,994, filed 4 December 1989 (Paper No. 11).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007