Ex Parte KENNEDY et al - 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               journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 25                   

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                  ________________                                    
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                  ________________                                    
                    Ex parte THOMAS D. KENNEDY, GORDON V. SHARPS                      
                                and RICHARD K. WATSON                                 
                                  ________________                                    
                                Appeal No. 1997-2234                                  
                               Application 08/254,345                                 
                                  ________________                                    
                                HEARD:  JULY 13, 2000                                 
                                  ________________                                    
          Before JOHN D. SMITH, WARREN and DELMENDO, Administrative Patent            
          Judges.                                                                     
          JOHN D. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.                                 

                              DECISION ON APPEAL                                      
               This is an appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C.  134 from the final           
          rejection of claims 28, 31, 33-39, and 62-69.  In the answer, the           
          examiner indicated that claim 31 would be allowable if rewritten            
          in independent form.  Thus, remaining for our consideration is              
          the appeal from the rejections of claims 28, 33-39, and 62-69.              


                                         -1-                                          





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007