Ex parte MCLAUGHLIN 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          not written for publication and is not binding precedent of                 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. 43                
                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                     __________                                       
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                 AND INTERFERENCES                                    
                                     __________                                       
                           Ex parte THOMAS L. MCLAUGHLIN                              
                                and CAROL A. CALDWELL                                 
                                     __________                                       
                                Appeal No. 1999-2630                                  
                               Application 08/341,464                                 
                                     ___________                                      
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                     ___________                                      

          Before PATE, MCQUADE, and CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent                   
          Judges.                                                                     
          MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.                                       

                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
              Thomas L. McLaughlin et al. originally took this appeal                 
         from the final rejection of claims 6, 9, 10, 13 and 14.  The                 
         appellants have since canceled claims 10, 13 and 14, and added               
         claims 15 and 16 which were allowed by the examiner (see the                 
         advisory action dated April 17, 1997, Paper No. 26).  Thus, the              
         appeal now involves claims 6 and 9.  Claims 1 through 5, the                 



                                          1                                           




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007