Ex parte SHYR 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               journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 15                   

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                  ________________                                    
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                  ________________                                    
               Ex parte RICHARD SHENG-TONG SHYR, ENRICO F. NAPOLETANO                 
                                  and MARIE GUILLOT                                   
                                  ________________                                    
                                Appeal No. 1996-3194                                  
                               Application 08/218,802                                 
                                  ________________                                    
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                  ________________                                    
          Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative                   
          Patent Judges.                                                              
          JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.                                   


                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
          This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134                      
          from the examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-9 and 21-24.                
          Claims 10-20 stand withdrawn from consideration as being                    
          directed to a nonelected invention.  Claims 25-28 were                      

                                         -1-                                          





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007