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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte RICHARD H. PUCKETT,
DREW S. BEHM and DONALD P. MARRIOTT
______________
Appeal No. 1997-3096
Application 08/391,4071
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, OWENS and TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner finally
rejecting claims 16 through 19 and 31 through 35. Claims 16, 31, 32 and 352 are illustrative of
the claims on appeal:
1 Application for patent filed February 16, 1995. This application is a division of application
08/160,375 (‘375 application), filed November 30, 1993, now United States Patent 5,409,799 (‘799
patent), issued April 25, 1995, which application is a continuation of application 07/652,021 (‘021
application), filed February 7, 1991, now abandoned. Application 08/803,985 (‘985 application)
was filed on February 21, 1997, by Michael C. Restaino and Richard H. Puckett as a continuation-
in-part of the present application, and is now United States Patent 6,045,921 (‘921 patent), issued
April 4, 2000. Application 09/542,601, filed April 4, 2000, is a continuation of the ‘985 application.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007