Ex parte HAMILTON 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               journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 20                        

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                  ________________                                    
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                  ________________                                    
                   Ex parte BRADLEY W. HAMILTON, JOHN W. SLATTERY                     
                                 and KERRY J. MONROE                                  
                                  ________________                                    
                                Appeal No. 1998-0613                                  
                               Application 08/554,998                                 
                                  ________________                                    
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                  ________________                                    
          Before THOMAS, FLEMING and HECKER, Administrative Patent                    
          Judges.                                                                     
          HECKER, Administrative Patent Judge.                                        

                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
          This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134                      
          from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 76 through 83.  Claims              
          84 through 86 have been withdrawn from consideration as being               
          directed to a non-elected invention.  This constitutes all the              


                                         -1-                                          





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007