Ex parte JOFFE - 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          (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 36              

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                        
                                    _____________                                      
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                    
                                    _____________                                      
                               Ex parte BENJAMIN JOFFE                                 
                                    _____________                                      
                                 Appeal No. 1999-1779                                  
                              Application No. 08/480,561                               
                                    ______________                                     
                                 HEARD: MAY 4, 2000                                    
                                   _______________                                     

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

                                  DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner                     
          finally rejecting claims 1-7, 19 and 20.  Claims 8-18 have                   
          been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-                  
          elected species.                                                             
               The appellant’s invention is directed to a wobble-                      

                                          1                                            





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007