Ex parte ROBERTSON 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               journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 15           


                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                  ________________                                    
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                 AND INTERFERENCES                                    
                                  ________________                                    
           Ex parte IAIN C. ROBERTSON, JEFFREY L. NYE, MICHAEL D. ASAL,              
             GRAHAM B. SHORT, RICHARD D. SIMPSON, and JAMES G. LITTLETON              
                                  ________________                                    
                                Appeal No. 1998-0072                                  
                             Application No. 08/476,786                               
                                  ________________                                    
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                  ________________                                    

          Before URYNOWICZ, JERRY SMITH, and FRAHM, Administrative                    
          Patent Judges.                                                              
          JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.                                   


                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   


               This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134                 
          from the examiner’s final rejection of claims 60, 62-64 and                 

                                         -1-                                          





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007