THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision entered today (1) was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.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 THEODORE J. LONG
Appeal No. 2003-0992
Application 09/934,0261
ON BRIEF
Before SCHAFER, LEE and MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s rejection of
appellants’ claims 2-14. Claim 1 has been cancelled and no claim has been allowed.
References relied on by the Examiner
Wayne 4,341,412 July 27, 1982
Dresen et al. (“Dresen”) 4,693,507 Sep. 15, 1987
Kuhns 5,365,858 Nov. 22, 1994
1 Application for patent filed August 21, 2001. According to the
appellant, it is a continuation of 09/576,565, filed May 22, 2000, which is a
continuation of 09/322,616, filed May 28, 1999, which is a continuation of
08/895,915, filed July 17, 1997. The real party in interest is Penda
Corporation.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007