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and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 31
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MAY TOM-MOY and
CARL A. MYERHOLTZ
____________
Appeal No. 1996-1618
Application No. 07/876,8041
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before WINTERS, SPIEGEL, and SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SPIEGEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner finally
rejecting claims 18 and 24 through 28 and refusing to allow claims 17, 22, 23 and 29 as
1Application for patent filed April 29, 1992. According to appellants, this application is a
continuation of application 07/404,721 filed September 8, 1989, now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-
part of application 07/251,149 filed September 29, 1988, now US Patent 5,130,257, issued July 14, 1992.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007