Ex parte NELSON et al. - Page 1






                                             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                                           (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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