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publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 54
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte DAN W. URRY
__________
Appeal No. 1999-0623
Application No. 08/316,802
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before WINTERS, WILLIAM F. SMITH, and ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ADAMS, 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 4-8, 10-16, 18-23, 26, and 28-38. Claims 39 and 40 are
objected to as dependent on a rejected claim1. Claims 1, 2, 9, 17, 24 and 25 are
canceled. The status of claims 3, 27, 41 and 42 is unclear from the administrative
file.
1 The objection of claims 39 and 40 is a petitionable, rather than an appealable
matter. Accordingly, the objection of claims 39 and 40 is not properly before this
panel on appeal. Therefore, we will not address the merits of this objection. In re
Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1403-1404, 169 USPQ 473, 479-480 (CCPA 1971).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007