Ex parte HOLMQUIST-BROWN 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          was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not             
          binding precedent of the Board.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. 16           
                     UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                        
                                    ____________                                      
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                    ____________                                      
               Ex parte THOMAS W. HOLMQUIST-BROWN and PETER O. REKOW                  
                                    ____________                                      
                                Appeal No. 1997-0153                                  
                             Application No. 08/375,681                               
                                    ____________                                      
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                    ____________                                      
          Before COHEN, NASE, and LAZARUS, Administrative Patent Judges.              
          LAZARUS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                       


                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final                 
          rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-16 under 35 U.S.C.  103.1                    


               We affirm.                                                             


                                                                                     
          1 At pages 1-2 of the examiner’s answer it is correctly noted that “The     
          statement of the status of the claims contained in the brief is incorrect…  
          this appeal involves claims 1-4 and 6-16… claim 5 has been indicated to be  
          allowable when written in independent form.”                                





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007