Ex Parte DAILEY et al - Page 1



               The opinion in support of the decision being entered                   
               today was not written for publication in a law journal                 
               and is not binding precedent of the Board.                             
                                                               Paper No. 15           

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                                                                     
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                                                                     
              Ex parte DANIEL PHILLIP DAILEY, ROBERT EDWARD BELKE JR.,                
               JAY DEAVIS BAKER, ACHYUTA ACHARI, MYRON LEMECHA                        
               and MICHAEL GEORGE TODD                                                
                                                                                     
                                Appeal No. 2001-0249                                  
                             Application No. 08/786,494                               
                                                                                     
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                                                                     
          Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and FLEMING, Administrative Patent                  
          Judges.                                                                     
          KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         

                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   

               This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of               
          claims 17-35.  Claims 1-16 have been withdrawn from consideration           
          and form no part of the appeal herein.                                      
               The invention is directed to a multi-layer printed circuit             

                                         -1–                                          




Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007