Ex parte Bochet

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 16, 1999

08798718 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 16, 1999)

Application for patent filed February 12, 1997. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written
for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 39
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte THIERRY BOCHET
____________
Appeal No. 1999-2092
Application No. 08/798,7181
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before COHEN, STAAB, and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
NASE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 42 through 51, which are all of the claims
pending in this application.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART and REMAND.
Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 2
Application No. 08/798,718
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a bag. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading
of exemplary claim 42, which appears in the appendix to the
appellant's brief.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Salvadori 4,363,406 Dec.
14, 1982
Claims 42 to 46, 48 and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Salvadori.
Claims 47, 49 and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Salvadori.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 34, mailed April 20, 1998) and the answer (Paper No. 38,
Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 3
Application No. 08/798,718
mailed September 9, 1998) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief
(Paper No. 37, filed August 20, 1998) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Claim 42
We sustain the rejection of claim 42 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
Initially we note that anticipation by a prior art
reference does not require either the inventive concept of the
claimed subject matter or the recognition of inherent
properties that may be possessed by the prior art reference.
Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 4
Application No. 08/798,718
See Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 633,
2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827
(1987). A prior art reference anticipates the subject of a
claim when the reference discloses every feature of the
claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently (see Hazani
v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1358,
1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data
Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir. 1984)); however, the law of anticipation does not require
that the reference teach what the appellants are claiming, but
only that the claims on appeal "read on" something disclosed
in the reference (see Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d
760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
465 U.S. 1026 (1984)).
Salvadori discloses a fluid drainage bag. As shown in
Figures 1, 2 and 4-6, the fluid drainage bag 10 includes a
body 12 preferably formed of two overlapping sheets 13 and 15
of polyvinyl chloride plastic. An internal fluid chamber 14
is formed within the bag body 12 by suitable means, such as
Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 5
Application No. 08/798,718
electronic welding, which joins the peripheral edges of the
overlapping sheets together. An inlet fitting 16 defining an
inlet port communicates with the internal chamber 14, and a
flexible inlet tube 18 (shown in phantom lines in Figure 1) is
connected at one end to a patient and at the opposite end to
the inlet fitting 16 so that fluid may be conducted from the
patient into the internal fluid chamber 14. Opening means 22
is integrally attached to the bag body 12 for forming a tear
in the polyvinyl chloride material of the bag body 12 to open
a permanent outlet passage (see Figures 4 and 5) in the
internal fluid chamber 14 through which fluid may be drained
from the bag 10. After drainage, the bag 10 is then
discarded.
Salvadori teaches (column 2, line 15, to column 3, line
56) that
[w]hile the bag 10 having integral opening means 22
may be variously constructed, in the illustrated
embodiment the internal fluid chamber 14 is formed so as
to include a main body portion 26 having an outlet port
28 which is normally sealed within the confines of the
bag body 12. More particularly, a truncated outlet
extension portion 30 is formed within the confines of the
bag body 12. The outlet extension 30 extends from the
outlet port 28 and has a sealed end 34 which is spaced
Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 6
Application No. 08/798,718
from the outlet port 28. As will soon be described, the
opening means 22 is operative for tearing the bag body 12
to separate the outlet extension 30 from the outlet port
28 to thereby open the outlet port 28 to permit drainage
of the fluid from the main body portion 26 of the
internal fluid chamber 14.
The material of sheets 13 and 15 in the area of
outlet port 28 at the base of outlet extension 30 is not
weakened by a score line or similar means to maintain the
sealed integrity of the outlet extensions until the
tearing operation is performed.
While the outlet port 28 and associated outlet
extension 30 may be variously located on the bag body 12,
in the preferred embodiment shown in FIGS. 1, 2, 4, 5 and
6, the bag body 12 includes seams 36, 38 and 39 which
define, respectively, the top peripheral edge and the
opposite peripheral side edges of the bag 10. Another
seam 54 extends from the side seam 39 in a path below and
generally parallel to the top edge seam 36, and generally
defines the uppermost extent of the main body portion 26
of the internal fluid chamber 14. Seam 54 terminates in a
spaced relationship from the side seam 38, and seam 55
thereafter extends in a generally upwardly sloping path
from seam 54 until the top edge seam 36 is joined. By
virtue of this construction, the confines of the outlet
extension 30, the outlet port 28, and the sealed end 34
of the outlet extension 30 are defined within a corner
section 40 of the bag 10.
Also by virtue of this construction, an upper
portion 59 of the bag body 12 is formed, being isolated
from communication with the interior fluid chamber 14 by
the seams 54 and 55. The opening means 22 includes a tap
member 42 which is integrally formed on the upper portion
59 adjacent to seam 55.
More particularly, a portion of the upper portion 59
is crimped (see FIG. 6), such as by electronic welding.
This crimping weakens the polyvinyl chloride material to
form a preformed tear seam 46. As is best shown in FIGS.
1 and 2, the preformed tear seam 46 extends between a
first tearing edge 48 (see FIG. 2) which intersects the
top edge seam 36 and a second tearing edge 50 which joins
Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 7
Application No. 08/798,718
seam 55. The tab member 42 is thereby defined
intermediate the preformed tear seam 46, the top edge
seam 36, and seam 55 and normally occupies a coplanar
relationship with the upper portion 59 of the bag body
12.
By grasping the tab member 42 between one's thumb
and forefinger and then pulling the tab member 42
laterally toward the side edge seam 38, the bag body 12
tears along the preformed tear seam 46. The tab member 42
is thereby lifted away from its coplanar relationship
with the bag body 12 (see FIG. 4). The second tearing
edge 50 thereafter acts as a stress point 52 which, as
the tab member 42 is progressively pulled laterally
toward the side edge seam 38, breaks the seam 55 and
initiates a tear line 44 (see FIG. 5) which proceeds from
the second tearing edge 50 across the outlet extension 30
until the side edge seam 38 of the bag 10 is reached. At
this point, the tab member 42 has separated the entire
corner section 40 from the bag body 12 and, in doing so,
has separated the outlet extension 30 from the outlet
port 28. A permanent drain opening is thus formed through
which fluid may be drained from the bag 10.
To guide and otherwise facilitate this tearing
action occasioned by laterally pulling upon the tab
member 42, the second tearing edge 50 joins seam 55 at an
angle (designated as angle x in FIG. 2) which is measured
between the seam line 54 and the preformed tear seam 46
immediately adjacent to the second tearing edge 50. By
virtue of this angle, the action of the stress point 52
in breaking the seam 55 and initiating the tear line 44
across the outlet extension 30 is enhanced. Furthermore,
the tear line 44 thereafter proceeds from the stress
point 52 across the outlet extension 30 at generally the
same angle to increase the size of the drain opening
formed. While this angle may be varied, in the preferred
embodiment, the angle is approximately 45°.
Additionally, the width of the seam 55 is increased
immediately above the juncture of the second tearing edge
50 and the seam 55 to thereby strengthen the seam 55 at
this point. The reinforcement of the seam 55 at this
point directs the tearing action at the stress point 52
Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 8
Application No. 08/798,718
away from the path of seam 55 and into the outlet
extension 30. Thus, undesired tearing along the path of
seam 55 is prevented.
It should be appreciated that the particular
construction of the preferred embodiment protects the tab
member 42 from being accidentally ruptured or damaged
during the manufacturing process. More particularly,
during the manufacturing process the two sheets 13 and 15
of polyvinyl chloride material are electronically welded
together forming the seams 36, 38, 39, 54 and 55 and
resulting in the presence of excess polyvinyl chloride
material extending outwardly from the peripheral seams
36, 38 and 39. This excess material is usually removed by
cutting or tearing. By shielding the major portion of the
tab member 42 within the confines of the upper portion
59, the tab member 42 is protected against accidental
tearing or damage during removal of this excess material.
In our view, claim 42 is anticipated by Salvadori. In
that regard, claim 42 is readable on Salvadori as follows:
A bag (Salvadori's bag 10) comprising a pair of flexible
tearable walls (Salvadori's sheets 13 and 15) defining between
them a central volume (Salvadori's chamber 14) for containing
a product, said walls being secured together along and
transversely of an elongated margin of substantial width
extending between an outer edge of said bag and said central
volume (Salvadori's seams 36 and 54 secure the sheets 13 and
15 together and define therebetween an elongated margin of
substantial width extending between outer seam 36 and the
Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 9
Application No. 08/798,718
chamber 14), and a line of weakness disposed in said margin
(Salvadori's opening means 22 and preformed tear seam 46),
said line of weakness having a central portion extending
lengthwise of said margin (as shown in Figure 5, the
horizontally disposed portion of Salvadori's preformed tear
seam 46) and opposite end portions (the end portions of
Salvadori's preformed tear seam 46 leading to first tearing
edge 48 and second tearing edge 50), said central portion
being disposed intermediate and spaced from opposite
longitudinal edges of said margin (the horizontally disposed
portion of Salvadori's preformed tear seam 46 is disposed
intermediate and spaced from opposite longitudinal edges
(i.e., seams 36 and 54) of the margin), a first said end
portion extending away from said central volume at an angle
and intersecting said outer edge (the end portion of
Salvadori's preformed tear seam 46 leading to first tearing
edge 48 from the horizontally disposed portion of Salvadori's
preformed tear seam 46), a second said end portion extending
toward said central volume and away from said central portion
at an angle in a direction opposite the direction in which
said first end portion extends (the end portion of Salvadori's
Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 10
Application No. 08/798,718
preformed tear seam 46 leading to second tearing edge 50 from
the horizontally disposed portion of Salvadori's preformed
tear seam 46).
The argument (brief, pp. 5-6) presented by the appellant
does not convince us that the subject matter of claim 42 is
novel. First, as set forth above, we discern no difference
between claim 42 and the teachings of Salvadori. Second, we
disagree with the appellant's position that for Salvadori to
anticipate claim 42, Salvadori must disclose a margin "as
shown in our drawings or in some form equivalent thereto." It
is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the PTO, claims in an
application are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and that
claim language should be read in light of the specification as
it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983). Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the
claims from the specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) citing In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 11
Application No. 08/798,718
1989). Thus, it would be improper to read limitations from
the drawings into claim 42. When the margin limitation of
claim 42 is given its broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification all that is required is a
margin at one edge of the bag having the claimed line of
weakness, which limitations are readable on Salvadori. Claim
42 does not require the recited margin to extend about the
entire periphery of the bag as shown in the drawings.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 42 is affirmed.
Claim 43
We sustain the rejection of claim 43 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
Claim 43 adds to parent claim 42 the limitation that
"said second end portion being spaced from said central volume
by a substantial width of said margin." In our view, claim 43
is anticipated by Salvadori. In that regard, claim 43 is
readable on Salvadori since Salvadori's second end portion
Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 12
Application No. 08/798,718
(the end portion of Salvadori's preformed tear seam 46 leading
to second tearing edge 50) is spaced from the chamber 14 by a
substantial width of the margin (i.e., the width of seam 54 at
stress point 52).
Contrary to the argument of the appellant (brief, p. 9),
the limitations of claim 43 are found in Salvadori for the
reasons set forth above; thus, the decision of the examiner to
reject claim 43 is affirmed.
Claim 45
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 45 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Claim 45 adds to parent claim 42 the limitation that the
bag further comprises "a bridge that interrupts said first end
portion of said line of weakness."
The examiner's position (final rejection, p. 2) with
respect to the limitation of claim 45 is that "the first end
portion of Salvadori is considered to show strengthing
Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 13
Application No. 08/798,718
'bridge' to the same degree as claimed." The appellant argues
(brief, p. 6) that he does not "find anything that interrupts
the first end portion of the line of weakness of Salvadori
that could be said to comprise a bridge." The examiner
responded to this argument (answer, p. 4) by stating that "the
first end portion of Salvadori shows a 'bridge' to the same
degree as claimed."
We agree we with the appellant that Salvadori does not
disclose "a bridge that interrupts said first end portion of
said line of weakness." In that regard, Salvadori's preformed
tear seam 46 does not include any structure that would
constitute a bridge that interrupts the first end portion
thereof (i.e., end by first tearing edge 48).
Since all the limitations of claim 45 are not found in
Salvadori for the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 45 is reversed.
Claim 47
Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 14
Application No. 08/798,718
We believe the broadest reasonable interpretation2
consistent with the specification of the phrase "greater
portion" is "more than 50%."
We sustain the rejection of claim 47 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
Claim 47 adds to parent claim 42 the limitation that the
bag "is polygonal and said line of weakness occupies the
greater
portion of the length of one side of the polygonal bag." [2]
The examiner ascertained (final rejection, p. 3) that
Salvadori discloses the claimed invention except for the line
of weakness occupying the greater portion of the length of the
margin. The examiner then determined that
[i]t would have been an obvious matter of design choice
to make the central portion of the Salvadori line of
weakness longer such that it occupies a greater portion
of the margin, since such a modification would have
involved a mere change in the size of a component. A
change in size is generally recognized as being within
the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105
USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 15
Application No. 08/798,718
We observe that the conclusion of obviousness may be3
made from "common knowledge and common sense" of the person of
ordinary skill in the art (see In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385,
1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)).
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 6-7) that "SALVADORI
does not disclose the line of weakness occupying the greater
portion of the length of one side of a polygonal bag" and that
"there is nothing in SALVADORI that would suggest this
change."
We agree with the examiner that the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In that
regard, we note that Salvadori is silent with respect to the
ratio of the length of the preformed tear seam 46 to the
length of one side of the polygonal bag 10. Thus, it was left
up to the skilled artisan to determine that ratio.3
This accords with the general rule that discovery of an
optimum value of a result effective variable (in this case,
the optimum ratio (i.e., greater portion)) is ordinarily
within the skill of the art. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,
Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 16
Application No. 08/798,718
276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980) and In re Aller, 220 F.2d
454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As stated in In re
Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir.
1996):
[t]his court and its predecessors have long held,
however, that even though applicant's modification
results in great improvement and utility over the
prior art, it may still not be patentable if the
modification was within the capabilities of one
skilled in the art, unless the claimed ranges
"produce a new and unexpected result which is
different in kind and not merely in degree from the
results of the prior art."
Additionally, as stated in In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575,
1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990):
[t]he law is replete with cases in which the
difference between the claimed invention and the
prior art is some range or other variable within the
claims. . . . These cases have consistently held
that in such a situation, the applicant must show
that the particular range is critical, generally by
showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected
results relative to the prior art range [citations
omitted].
In the present case, however, the appellant has not even
alleged, must less established, that the claimed ratio (i.e.,
the length of the line of weakness to the length of one side
Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 17
Application No. 08/798,718
of the polygonal bag) produces unexpected results. Therefore,
we are of the opinion that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant's
invention to have Salvadori's preformed tear seam 46 occupy
the greater
portion of the length of one side of the polygonal bag 10.
Accordingly, the examiner's rejection of claim 47 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is sustained.
Claim 51
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 51 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 51 adds to parent claim 42 the limitation that the
walls are "secured together over all the area between said
opposite longitudinal edges of said margin."
The examiner ascertained (final rejection, p. 4) that
Salvadori discloses the claimed invention except for the walls
of the bag being secured together over all the area between
Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 18
Application No. 08/798,718
the opposite longitudinal edges of the margin. The examiner
then determined that
[i]t would have been an obvious matter of design choice
to secure the walls of Salvadori together over all the
area between the opposite longitudinal edges of the
margin, since applicant has not disclosed that bag walls
secured together over all the area between the opposite
longitudinal edges of the margin solves any stated
problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears
that the Salvadori bag would perform equally well with
walls secured together over all the area between the
opposite longitudinal edges of the margin.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 7-9) that the rejection
cannot be sustained since the margin as claimed in claim 51
permits easy manufacture of the bag, easy separation of the
bags, and easy filling and closing of the bags. Moreover, the
appellant assert that the claimed "secured-together margin,
plus a line of weakness" is not suggested by the teachings of
Salvadori.
We agree with the appellant that the claimed subject
matter would not have been obvious at the time the invention
was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art from the
teachings of the applied prior art. A case of obviousness is
Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 19
Application No. 08/798,718
established by presenting evidence that would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed.
Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ
560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Evidence of a suggestion, teaching, or
motivation to modify a reference may flow from the prior art
references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill
in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem
to be solved, see Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics,
Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir.
1996), Para-Ordinance Mfg. v. SGS Imports Intern., Inc., 73
F.3d 1085, 1088, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
although "the suggestion more often comes from the teachings
of the pertinent references," In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350,
1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The range of
sources available, however, does not diminish the requirement
for actual evidence. That is, the showing must be clear and
particular. See, e.g., C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc., 157
F.3d 1340, 1352, 48 USPQ2d 1225, 1232 (Fed. Cir. 1998). A
broad conclusory statement regarding the obviousness of
Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 20
Application No. 08/798,718
See pages 3-4 of the appellant's brief.4
modifying a reference, standing alone, is not "evidence."
E.g., McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576,
1578, 27 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Sichert,
566 F.2d 1154, 1164, 196 USPQ 209, 217 (CCPA 1977). See also
In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed.
Cir. 1999). In this case, the examiner has not presented
sufficient evidence establishing the obviousness of the
subject matter of claim 51.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Claims 44, 46 and 48 to 50
In accordance with the appellant's Grouping of Claims and4
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claims 44, 46 and 48 to 50 fall with
claims 42 and 47. Thus, it follows that the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 44, 46 and 48 to 50 is also
affirmed.
Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 21
Application No. 08/798,718
REMAND
We remand this application to the examiner for further
consideration of the patentability of claims 45 and 51 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. With regard to claim 45, the examiner should
assess available evidence in the bag art to determine if it is
known in the bag art to have a line of weakness made from a
series of perforations that provide a bridge portion between
adjacent perforations. With regard to claim 51, the examiner
should assess available evidence in the bag art to determine
if it is known in the bag art to have a margin secured
together over all the area between opposite longitudinal edges
of the margin. If those items are known in the bag art, the
examiner should cite that evidence (e.g., prior art) and then
consider whether or not such evidence can be combined with
Salvadori to render claim 45 or claim 51 unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 22
Application No. 08/798,718
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 42 to 44, 46, 48 and 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
affirmed; the decision of the examiner to reject claim 45 is
reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 47 and
49 is affirmed; and the decision of the examiner to reject
claim 51 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. In addition, the application has
been remanded to the examiner for further consideration of
claims 45 and 51.
This application, by virtue of its "special" status,
requires immediate action, see MPEP § 708.01 (Seventh Edition,
July 1998).
Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 23
Application No. 08/798,718
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REMANDED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 24
Application No. 08/798,718
ROBERT J. PATCH
YOUNG & THOMPSON
745 SOUTH 23RD STREET
ARLINGTON, VA 22202
APPEAL NO. 1999-2092 - JUDGE NASE
APPLICATION NO. 08/798,718
APJ NASE
APJ COHEN
APJ STAAB
DECISION: AFFIRMED-IN-PART;
REMANDED
Prepared By: Gloria Henderson
DRAFT TYPED: 03 Dec 99
FINAL TYPED: