Ex parte CONOVER - 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                              publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 20              
                               UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                
                                    BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                  
                                                AND INTERFERENCES                                                       
                                             Ex parte KURT M. CONOVER                                                   
                                                 Appeal No. 1997-2151                                                   
                                               Application No. 08/221,959                                               
                                                       ON BRIEF                                                         
              Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.                                          
              DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                       

                                                DECISION ON APPEAL                                                      

                     This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 14, 28-31               
              and 33-41 , which are all of the claims pending in this application.                                      

                     We AFFIRM.                                                                                         

                     Claims 32 and 42 have been objected to by the examiner as allowable if written in independent1                                                                                                 

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007