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and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte BRADFORD E. WINDLE
____________
Appeal No. 1997-4145
Application No. 08/361,3281
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before WINTERS, SPIEGEL, and MILLS, 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 5, 10, 26 through 29 and 33 through 40. Claims 6 through
9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be
allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base
claim and any intervening claims (see e.g., advisory action mailed December 6, 1996
1 Application for patent filed December 21, 1994. According to appellant, this application is a
continuation-in-part of application 08/264,802 filed June 23, 1994, which issued as U.S. Patent No.
5,707,797 on January 13, 1998, which is a continuation-in-part of application 08/002,781 filed January 8,
1993, now abandoned.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007