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publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 29
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte SERGEI VINOGRADOV and DAVID F. WILSON
__________
Appeal No. 1998-2107
Application No. 08/137,624
__________
ON BRIEF1
__________
Before WINTERS, SCHEINER, 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. According to appellants “[c]laims 1-7, 14-20, 22-24, 26-45, 47-58
and 59 are pending in this [a]pplication.” Brief2, § 3, page 2. Claims 8-13, 21, 25,
46 and 60 were canceled. According to appellants “[i]n a Final office Action dated
May 9, 1996, claims 1-7, 10 (sic), 14-20, 22-58 and 59 were rejected.” Id. After two
requests for reconsideration after Final Rejection, the status of the claims remained
the same, according to appellants “all of the pending claims 1-7, 14-20, 22-24, 26-
1 In accordance with 37 CFR 1.194(c), the Board decided that an oral hearing was
not necessary in this appeal. Therefore, appellants’ request for oral hearing was
vacated (Paper No. 28, mailed March 12, 2001).
2 Paper No. 18, received February 11, 1997.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007