Ex Parte TRAN 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                   for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 22         
                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                      
                                     ____________                                     
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                          
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                     ____________                                     
                 Ex parte QUANG Q. TRAN, MARLOWE PATTERSON, HENRY NITA                
                                  and PAUL C. SLAIKEU                                 
                                     ____________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 2000-0447                                 
                              Application No. 08/838,685                              
                                     ____________                                     
                                       ON BRIEF                                       
                                     ____________                                     
          Before NASE, CRAWFORD, and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.              
          CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.                                      

                                  DECISION ON APPEAL                                  
               This is a decision on appeal from the examiner’s final                 
          rejection of claims 1 through 9, which are the only claims pending          
          in this application.                                                        
               The appellants’ invention relates to a catheter having an              
          elongate tubular member.  An understanding of the invention can be          
          derived from a reading of claim 1, which appears in the appendix to         
          the appellants’ brief.                                                      







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

Last modified: November 3, 2007