Ex parte TAM 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          publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 13              

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                    _____________                                     
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                 AND INTERFERENCES                                    
                                    _____________                                     
                                 Ex parte MAN C. TAM                                  
                                        and                                           
                                  EDWARD G. ZWARTZ                                    
                                    _____________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 1997-1053                                 
                             Application No. 08/432,291                               
                                   ______________                                     
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                   _______________                                    

          Before GARRIS, WALTZ, and KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.              
          WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         

                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134 from the                       
          examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 32, which are                
          all of the claims pending in this application.                              
               According to appellants, the invention is directed to a                
          migration imaging process (specification, page 1).                          
          Illustrative claim 1 is reproduced and attached as an Appendix              
                                          1                                           





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007