Ex parte BRANDON 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                                        (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 14            
                             UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                        
                                 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                           
                                            AND INTERFERENCES                                                 
               Ex parte FRED Y. BRANDON, ROBERT A. CHRISTIANSEN, CURTIS R. DROEGE,                            
                              LAWRENCE R. STEWARD, and GARY R. WILLIAMS                                       
                                             Appeal No. 1998-1595                                             
                                           Application No. 08/439,912                                         
                                                   ON BRIEF                                                   
            Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.                                 
            DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                               

                                            DECISION ON APPEAL                                                

                   This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 15-19 and       
            21.  Claims 1-14 and 20 have been indicated by the examiner as allowable, and claim 22            
            is objected to as being dependent upon rejected claim 21.                                         
                   We AFFFIRM.                                                                                

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007