Ex parte LACOUNT - 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                not binding precedent of the Board.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. 37               

                                     UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                           
                                                              ____________                                                               

                                           BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                            
                                                       AND INTERFERENCES                                                                 
                                                              ____________                                                               

                                                   Ex parte ROBERT B. LACOUNT                                                            
                                                              ____________                                                               

                                                           Appeal No. 97-1107                                                            
                                                       Application No. 08/047,512                                                        
                                                              ____________                                                               

                                                                ON BRIEF                                                                 
                                                              ____________                                                               

                Before KIMLIN, PAK, and TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                              
                TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                                       



                                                       DECISION ON APPEAL                                                                

                        This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134 from the examiner's final rejection of claims                 

                10, 15-21, 23, and 25-27.  Claims 11-14, 22, 24, 29, and 30 have been allowed by the examiner.                           

                Claim 28 has been objected to as being dependent upon rejected claim 27, but the examiner has not                        

                rejected this claim over the prior art.                                                                                  









Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007