Ex parte SIFF - 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                     not binding precedent of the Board.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. 36                                          

                                               UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                                                               
                                                      BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                                                               
                                                                         AND INTERFERENCES                                                                                             
                                                                 Ex parte ELLIOTT J. SIFF                                                                                              
                                                                     Appeal No. 1996-2918                                                                                              
                                                                   Application 08/164,879                                                                                              
                                                                    HEARD: March 23, 2000                                                                                              

                     Before KIMLIN, JOHN D. SMITH and OWENS, Administrative Patent                                                                                                     
                     OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                                                                               
                                                                        DECISION ON APPEAL                                                                                             
                                This is an appeal from the examiner’s second rejection of                                                                                              
                     claims 19-21, which are all of the claims remaining in the                                                                                                        

                                1Claims 20 and 21 were submitted when the present                                                                                                      
                     continuation-in-part application was filed.  However, the                                                                                                         
                     continuation-in-part specification has not been substituted                                                                                                       
                     for the parent case specification, and claims 20 and 21 have                                                                                                      

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007