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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 42
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte WILLIAM L. MELBYE, SUSAN K. NESTEGARD, LEIGH E. WOOD,
MARVIN D. LINDSETH and DALE A. BYCHINSKI
____________
Appeal No. 2000-2013
Application No. 08/766,544
____________
HEARD: November 6, 2002
____________
Before GARRIS, WALTZ, and MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the examiner’s refusal to
allow claims 17 through 21, 26 and 27 as amended subsequent to the
final rejection (see the amendment dated Mar. 21, 2000, Paper No.
32, entered as per the Answer, page 2, ¶(4)).1 Claims 17-21, 26
and 27 are the only claims pending in this application. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134.
1All reference to the Answer is to the Supplemental
Examiner’s Answer dated May 22, 2002, Paper No. 39.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007