Ex parte TAYLOR 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          (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 9               

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                    _____________                                     
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                    _____________                                     
                             Ex parte TOMMY G. TAYLOR,                                
                                J. DOUGLAS MANSELL,                                   
                                 JOHN P. SHAMBURGER                                   
                                and MARK E. WOODYEAR                                  
                                    _____________                                     
                                Appeal No. 1997-2265                                  
                               Application 08/369,207                                 
                                   ______________                                     
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                   _______________                                    

          Before PAK, WALTZ and ROBINSON, Administrative Patent Judges.               
          WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         

                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This is an appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C.  134 from the                 
          examiner’s final rejection of claim 2, which is the only claim              
          remaining in this application.                                              
               According to appellants, the invention is directed to                  

                                          1                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007