Ex parte EDGREN 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                         written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 29                            
                                  UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                
                                       BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                  
                                                   AND INTERFERENCES                                                       
                                 Ex parte DAVID E. EDGREN, HOWARD A. CARPENTER,                                            
                                          GURDISH K. BHATTI AND ATUL D. AYER                                               
                                                    Appeal No. 1997-1160                                                   
                                                  Application No. 08/036,566                                               
                                                           ON BRIEF                                                        
                  Before, WINTERS, ADAMS, and MILLS, Administrative Patent Judges.                                         
                  ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                      

                                                   DECISION ON APPEAL                                                      

                         This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134 from the examiner’s final                  
                  rejection of claims 24-27.  We note that claim 23 was canceled in appellants’ after final                
                  amendment1, therefore the examiner’s final rejection of claim 23 is not at issue in this                 

                  1 Paper No. 15, received March 9, 1995.                                                                  

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007