Ex parte TERRELL 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                     (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 20                                          

                                               UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                                                               
                                                                              _______________                                                                                          

                                                       BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                                                              
                                                                        AND INTERFERENCES                                                                                              
                                                                              _______________                                                                                          

                                                                       Ex parte DAVID TERRELL                                                                                          
                                                     STEFAAN DE MEUTTER and BERND KALETTA                                                                                              
                                                                              ______________                                                                                           

                                                                           Appeal No. 1997-0006                                                                                        
                                                                          Application 08/409,946                                                                                       
                                                                              _______________                                                                                          

                                                                       HEARD: February 22, 2000                                                                                        
                                                                              _______________                                                                                          

                     Before KIMLIN, WARREN and LIEBERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                                                                

                     WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                                                                              
                                                                             Decision on Appeal                                                                                        
                                This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134 from the decision of the examiner finally rejecting                                                            
                     claims 1 through 11 and 14 through 19, which were all of the claims in the application.  Subsequent to                                                            
                     the final rejection, appellants cancelled claims 2, 3 and 10, amended claim 18, and submitted new claim                                                           
                     20.   The examiner has held claims 20 and 11 to be allowable.  Thus, claims 1, 4 through 9 and 141                                                                                                                                                            
                     through 19 remain for our consideration on appeal.  Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal:                                                              



                     1Amendments of June 7, 1996 (Paper No. 13) and September 3, 1996 (Paper No. 15).                                                                                  
                                                                                   - 1 -                                                                                               




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007