Ex Parte HENRICSON 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          written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 33              

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                    _____________                                     
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                    _____________                                     
                              Ex parte KAJ HENRICSON,                                 
                                   TOROLF LAXEN,                                      
                                        and                                           
                                   JUHANI PELTONEN                                    
                                    _____________                                     
                                Appeal No. 1999-0678                                  
                             Application No. 08/462,691                               
                                   ______________                                     
                              HEARD: AUGUST 15, 2001                                  
                                   _______________                                    
          Before KIMLIN, PAK, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent             
          Judges.                                                                     
          PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.                                           
                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from             
          the examiner’s final rejection of claims 18 through 35, which are           










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

Last modified: November 3, 2007