Ex parte CARLSEN et al. - Page 1




               The opinion in support of the decision being entered                    
               today was not written for publication and is not                        
               binding precedent of the Board.                                         
                                                   Paper No. 43                        

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                        
                                   ________________                                    
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                    
                                   ________________                                    
                       Ex parte RALPH CARLSEN, MARC P. KAPLAN                          
                                and JOHN S. ROBERTSON                                  
                                   ________________                                    
                                 Appeal No. 1997-0402                                  
                                Application 07/843,685                                 
                                   ________________                                    
                               HEARD:  AUGUST 17, 2000                                 
                                   ________________                                    
          Before BARRETT, HECKER and LALL, Administrative Patent Judges.               
          HECKER, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         


                                  DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
                    This is a decision on appeal from the final                        
          rejection of claims 1 through 22.  The Examiner’s Answer,                    
          paper no. 34, withdrew all outstanding grounds of rejection                  
          and stated new grounds of rejection for claims 1 through 6, 8                
          through 15 and 18 through 22.  The Examiner indicated that                   



                                         -1-                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007