Ex parte OMVIK et al. - Page 1




               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               today was not written for publication and is not                       
               binding precedent of the Board.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. 12              

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                  ________________                                    
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                 AND INTERFERENCES                                    
                                  ________________                                    
                     Ex parte JOHN F. OMVIK and EARLE B. STOKES                       
                                  ________________                                    
                                Appeal No. 1999-0533                                  
                               Application 08/614,775                                 
                                  ________________                                    
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                  ________________                                    
          Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH and BARRY, Administrative Patent                  
          Judges.                                                                     
          JERRY SMITH, 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 1-10, which                   
          constitute all the claims in the application.  The examiner                 
          has now indicated that claims 3 and 4 contain allowable                     
          subject matter [answer, page 5].  Therefore, this appeal is                 
          now directed to the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 5-10.                      
                                         -1-                                          





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007