THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision 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in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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 LAWRENCE RAGAN and GAROLD B. GASKILL
Appeal No. 1997-2246
Application 08/353,8721
ON BRIEF
Before SCHAFER, LEE and MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the examiner’s rejection of appellants’ claims 2, 4, 8 and 9.
No claim has been allowed.
Introduction
This case is before a panel of this Board for the third
time. On March 30, 2000, a panel remanded the case back to
the examiner for action not inconsistent with the comments and
1
Application for patent filed December 9, 1994. The real party in
interest is SEICO EPSON CORPORATION.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007