Ex parte MONTE - Page 1

                    The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication
                                      and is not binding precedent of the Board.                              
                                                                                    Paper No. 11              
                           UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                          
                                BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                            
                                           AND INTERFERENCES                                                  
                                      Ex parte WOODROW C. MONTE                                               
                                            Appeal No. 1997-3537                                              
                                         Application No. 08/395,8671                                          
                                                 ON BRIEF                                                     
            Before WINTERS, SPIEGEL, and SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judges.                              
            SPIEGEL, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                             

                                           DECISION ON APPEAL                                                 
                   This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134 from the examiner's final               
            rejection of claims 1 through 14, which are all of the claims pending in this application.2       
            Claims 1 and 2 are illustrative and read as follows:                                              

                   1Application for patent filed February 28, 1995.  According to appellant, this application is a
            continuation of application 08/123,794 filed September 20, 1993, now abandoned.                   
                   2As acknowledged by appellant, "Claim 6 is objected to because in line 8 "bone" should be --
            bovine--.  Applicant endeavors to correct this informality at the conclusion of this Appeal" (brief, p. 2).
            However, this error in claim 6 has not been corrected by amendment as of the mailing date of this decision.

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007