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publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte WAYNE ISAMI IMAINO, ANTHONY JULIANA,
MILTON RUSSELL LATTA, CHARLES H. LEE,
WAI CHEUNG LEUNG, HAL J.ROSEN,
STEVEN MEEKS, and RICHARD SONNENFELD
____________
Appeal No. 2000-1414
Application No. 08/840,351
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1-4, 6,
81-14, and 16-26. The examiner has indicated that claims 5, 7, 15, and 26 would be
allowable over the prior art of record if the claims were rewritten in independent form.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 We note that claim 8 depends from claim 7 which has been indicated by the examiner as
allowable over the prior art of record on page 2 of the answer.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007