Ex parte BARTOCCI - 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               journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the                        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. 27           
                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                    ____________                                      
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                 AND INTERFERENCES                                    
                                    ____________                                      

                              Ex parte MARCEL BARTOCCI                                
                                    ____________                                      
                                Appeal No. 1998-2119                                  
                             Application No. 08/343,965                               
                                    ____________                                      
                               HERAD : April 18, 2000                                 
                                    ____________                                      

          Before COHEN, FRANKFORT, and NASE, Administrative Patent                    
          Judges.                                                                     
          FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent Judge.                                     


                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               According to appellant (Paper No. 14), this is an appeal               
          from the examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-20.               
          However, we note that amendments (Paper Nos. 12 and 17) filed               
          subsequent to the final rejection and approved for entry by                 
          the examiner have amended claims 1 and 13, and canceled claims              





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007