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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte THOMAS A. NELSON
and JAMES S. RUSCYK
______________
Appeal No. 1996-2050
Application 08/146,779
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before PAK, WARREN and LIEBERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner finally rejecting
claims 1, 3 through 5 and 8.1
We have carefully considered the record before us, and based thereon, find that we cannot
sustain the ground of rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Thiele et al.
(Thiele) in view of Lux et al. (Lux). The examiner has framed the initial but dispositive issue with2
1Amendment of March 20, 1995 (Paper No. 12).
2These references are listed at page 3 of the answer.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007