Ex parte BANERJEE et al. - 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                   for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 29           
                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                    ____________                                      
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                 AND INTERFERENCES                                    
                                    ____________                                      
              Ex parte BISWA R. BANERJEE, S. CHRISTOPHER GLADWIN, ARIF                
                               MASKATIA and ALAN SOUCY                                
                                    ____________                                      
                                Appeal No. 1998-0943                                  
                             Application No. 08/300,500                               
                                    ____________                                      
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                    ____________                                      
          Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent                
          Judges.                                                                     
          RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.                                      





                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This is a decision on the appeal from the final rejection              
          of claims 1-13, all of the claims pending in the present                    
          application.  An amendment after final rejection filed March                
          5, 1999, was entered by the Examiner.  In the Examiner’s                    
          Answer, the Examiner indicated that claims 2, 3, and 5 were                 
          allowable.  Accordingly, only the rejection of claims 1, 4,                 





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007