Ex parte LAW et al. - Page 1

                             THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION                                                 
              The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication in               
              a law journal and is not binding precedent of the Board.                                                    
                                                                                      Paper No. 30                        
                              UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                   
                                   BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                     
                                                AND INTERFERENCES                                                         
                              Ex parte KOCK-YEE LAW and IHOR W. TARNAWSKYJ                                                
                                                Appeal No. 1996-1362                                                      
                                                Application 08/234,074                                                    
                                                       ON BRIEF                                                           

              Before WINTERS, WARREN, and ROBINSON,  Administrative Patent Judges.                                        
              ROBINSON, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                      

                                                DECISION ON APPEAL                                                        
                     This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134 from the final rejection of claims                           
              1-3, 6-11, 17-27, and 30-32.  Claim 33 has been indicated allowable by the examiner.                        
              (Paper No. 21).  Claim 4 is not subject to any rejection.  While the examiner has not stated                
              the status of this claim, we presume it is not before us on this appeal.                                    


Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007