Ex parte EDLUND 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                 was not written for publication and is not binding precedent                                                                           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. 12                                 

                                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                                        
                                                                   __________                                                                           
                                             BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                                         
                                                            AND INTERFERENCES                                                                           
                                                                   __________                                                                           
                                                      Ex parte MARK G. EDLUND,                                                                          
                                                            JAMES R. CORNWELL                                                                           
                                                                         and                                                                            
                                                               STEVEN A. RUSH                                                                           
                                                                   __________                                                                           
                                                          Appeal No. 1999-1254                                                                          
                                                        Application 08/820,490                                                                          
                                                                   __________                                                                           
                                                                    ON BRIEF                                                                            
                                                                   __________                                                                           

                 Before GARRIS, OWENS, and TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                                          
                 PER CURIAM.                                                                                                                            
                                                           DECISION ON APPEAL                                                                           

                          This is a decision on an appeal from the final rejection                                                                      
                 of claims 1-16, 20-21 and 28-30, which are all of the claims                                                                           
                 under consideration in this application.1                                                                                              

                          1It is unclear whether nonelected claims 17-19 and 22-27                                                                      
                 are cancelled or are pending but withdrawn from further                                                                                
                 consideration by the examiner.  This lack of clarity should be                                                                         
                                                                           1                                                                            





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007