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for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte CHARLES G. MIYADA,
ARTHUR C. SWITCHENKO, MELANIE W. QUONG
and MAN-YING L. WONG
__________
Appeal No. 1997-3378
Application 08/487,946
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before WILLIAM F. SMITH, SCHEINER, and MILLS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MILLS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. §134 from the examiner's final
1
rejection of claims 5-9, 40 [sic 39], 41 and 42. Claims 41 and 42 have been
withdrawn from consideration by the examiner in Paper No. 7, mailed July 11, 1996.
1The final rejection rejects claims 5-9, 40, however, appellants point out that claim
40 was canceled at the time of filing of the present application and believe that the
rejection is applied to claim 39 instead of claim 40. Appeal Brief, page 2. See also
Paper No. 4, page 2, referencing claim 39.
1
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007