Ex parte BATTOCCHIO 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               journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 29                           

                                 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                        

                                       BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                         
                                                   AND INTERFERENCES                                                              

                                 Ex parte CLAUDIO BATTOCCHIO and ANDRE DOSJOUB                                                    

                                                     Appeal No. 1997-2883                                                         
                                                     Application 08/379,443                                                       

                                                 HEARD: FEBRUARY 9, 2000                                                          

               Before JERRY SMITH, DIXON, and FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                

               FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                                

                                                   DECISION ON APPEAL                                                             

                      Appellants have appealed to the Board from the examiner’s final rejection of claims 23 and 25               

               to 52, which constitute all of the claims pending on appeal.  Claims 1 to 22 and 24 have been                      


                      1We note that although the examiner includes claim 24 in the Answer (page 4) and in the final rejection     
               (pages 1 and 6) as being included with the other rejected claims, 23 and 25 to 52, claim 24 was canceled by appellants
               at page 9 of their August 16, 1996, amendment.  Although the amendment of August 16, 1996, was made after final    
               rejection, this amendment was entered by the examiner.  Such entry is evidenced by the Advisory Action of          

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007