Ex parte DOUCHE 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               not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding    
               precedent of the Board.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. 29         
                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                      
                                     ____________                                     
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                          
                                   AND INTERFERENCES                                  
                                     ____________                                     
                    Ex parte JEAN-PIERRE DOUCHE and PHILIPPE ARMAND                   
                                     ____________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 1996-2972                                 
                              Application No. 07/928,784                              
                                     ____________                                     
                               HEARD: February 07, 2000                               
                                     ____________                                     
          Before, KIMLIN, GARRIS, and KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.            
          KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         


                                  DECISION ON APPEAL                                  
               This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's refusal               
          to allow claims 1, 3-6, and 13-17 as amended after the final                
          rejection, which are all of the claims pending in this                      
          application.                                                                
                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               The appellants’ invention relates to a process of                      
          duplicate molding wherein first and second glazings are each                
          positioned, respectively, in a separate mold associated                     





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007