Ex Parte PERRY - 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                     publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 50         
                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                      
                                     ____________                                     
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                          
                                   AND INTERFERENCES                                  
                                     ____________                                     
                               Ex parte ANDREW M. PERRY                               
                                     ____________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 2001-0688                                 
                              Application No. 08/689,721                              
                                     ____________                                     
                                  HEARD: May 21, 2002                                 
                                     ____________                                     
          Before THOMAS, GROSS, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.               
          LEVY, Administrative Patent Judge.                                          


                                  DECISION ON APPEAL                                  
               This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the            
          examiner's final rejection of claims 11-131, which are all of the           
          claims pending in this application.                                         


                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               Appellant's invention relates to a method of suspending a              
          musical recorder from the neck of a user.  An understanding of              



               1 Appellant asserts (brief, page 3) that claims 11 and 12 are being    
          appealed, and that claim 13 is "not a subject of this appeal."  We observe  
          that the examiner's answer only refers to claims 11 and 12.  Accordingly, the
          appeal is dismissed as to finally rejected claim 13.                        





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007