Ex Parte Long

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 24, 2002

08838133 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 24, 2002)

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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte
CHARLES J. LONG JR.
____________
Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before COHEN, ABRAMS, and STAAB, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAAB, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Charles J. Long, Jr. appeals from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-14, 16-28, 31, 32, 34-39 and 41-43. Claims
15, 29, 30, 33 and 40, the only other claims pending in the
application, have been objected to as depending from a rejected
claim, but are otherwise indicated as being allowable if rewritten
in independent form.
Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
2
Appellant’s invention pertains to threaded tamper-evident
container closures, and to threaded tamper-evident closures having
push-pull resealable tamper-evident pour spouts.
The references cited in the final rejection are:
Thomas et al. (Thomas) 2,998,902 Sep. 5, 1961
Arona-Delonghi 4,919,309 Apr. 24, 1990
Beck 5,456,374 Oct. 10, 1995
Sander et al. (Sander) 5,588,562 Dec. 31, 1996
Claims 42 and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
Claims 1-14, 37-39 and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Sander in view of Arona-Delonghi.
Claims 16-28 and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Sander in view of Arona-Delonghi, and
further in view of Thomas.
Claims 31, 32, 34-36 and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Sander in view of Arona-Delonghi
and Thomas, and further in view of Beck ‘374.
Reference is made to appellant’s main and reply briefs (Paper
Nos. 11 and 16) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 13) for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner regarding the
merits of these rejections.
Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
1Attachment to appellant’s response submitted April 12, 1999
(Paper No. 6). A copy thereof is attached to this decision.
3
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to the
applied prior art references, to the paper styled “AFFIDAVIT
PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 1.132” of inventor Charles J. Long, Jr.1, and
to the above noted positions articulated by appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations that follow.
I. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
Claims 42 and 43 depend from claims 5 and 26, respectively,
and further set forth that the closure has “at least one said first
frangible element . . . connected to said annular wall from a first
elevated bridge portion.”
The examiner has rejected these claims because, in the
examiner’s view, they “raise[] issues of double inclusion” (answer,
page 3). The examiner’s position in this regard is not well taken.
The disclosed feature claims 42 and 43 are directed to is the
location of at least one of the first frangible elements 14 (see
Figures 1-3) extending from the tamper-evident band 15 to the
depending annular wall or skirt 13 at the location of the first
Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
4
elevated bridging portion 35. That is, the at least one first
frangible element 14 of claims 42 and 43 interconnects the tamper-
evident band 15 to the depending annular wall 13 by means of the
first elevated bridging portion 35. This is in contrast to other
(separate and distinct) first frangible elements 14 (also seen in
Figures 1-3) claimed in, for example, claims 5 and 26, that
interconnect the tamper-evident band 15 to the depending annular
wall 13 at locations between first elevated bridging portions 35.
Because claims 42 and 43 are directed to different frangible
elements than the frangible elements of claims 5 and 26 from which
they respectively depend, and because no other claim in the chain
of dependency of claims 42 or 43 is directed to the same frangible
elements as claims 42 and 43, the examiner’s concerns are not well
founded.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing rejection of
claims 42 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
II. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Preliminary Matters
The paper styled “AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 1.132” filed
in this application on April 12, 1999 as an attachment to Paper No.
6 does not qualify as an affidavit because it is not under oath,
Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
2Implicit in this position is the examiner’s determination
that claim 1 requires that the locking member be “hook shaped”
and/or “continuous,” a position with which we do not agree. What
claim 1 does require with respect to the at least one arcuate
projection is that said projection comprises a locking member
(continued...)
5
and does not qualify as a declaration because it does not include
on the same document the warnings of the consequences of willful
false statements set forth in 37 CFR § 1.68. This being the case,
the Long “affidavit” may not properly be accorded evidentiary
status. See In re Mehta, 347 F.2d 859, 866, 146 USPQ 284, 289
(CCPA 1965), In re Hunter, 167 F.2d 1006, 1009, 77 USPQ 610, 612-13
(CCPA 1948) and Ex parte Meyer, 6 USPQ2d 1966, 1968 (BPAI 1988).
We therefore will treat Mr. Long’s statements as argument in
responding to the points raised therein.
The standing rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims
1-14, 16-20, 23-27, 31, 32, 37-39 and 42
Considering first the § 103 rejection of claim 1, there
appears to be no dispute that Sander, the examiner’s primary
reference, discloses a tamper-evident closure with a resealable
pour spout of the type generally disclosed and claimed by
appellant. With respect to claim 1, the examiner considers
(answer, pages 3-4) that Sander “lacks the locking member being
hook shaped and continuous.”2 The examiner contends, however, that
Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
2(...continued)
“extending radially inward from said first tamper indicating ring
with a surface at an angle to a plane normal with said first
tamper indicating ring” (emphasis added). Based on the showing
in Figures 1, 2 and 7 of Sander, the arcuate projections 16 on
Sander’s tamper indicating ring 15 appears to meet this
limitation, in which event Sander would anticipate claim 1.
6
this feature is taught by Arona-Delonghi at locking rib 10. The
examiner concludes (answer, page 4) that it would have been obvious
to provide the closure of Sander with a hook-shaped locking member
as taught by Arona-Delonghi in order to better secure the closure
to the neck of a bottle.
Appellant argues that Arona-Delonghi is non-analogous art.
Appellant further argues (1) that Arona-Delonghi teaches away from
adaption of any of its features to a threaded snap-on closure, (2)
that the closure of Arona-Delonghi encounters completely different
types of forces during installation and removal that would not
enable its use with appellant’s tamper-evident closure having a
threaded connection to the container, (3) that there is no
suggestion that would motivate one skilled in the art to provide a
hook-shaped locking member on the tamper-evident band of a threaded
closure that is screwed on and off of a container, and (4) that the
examiner’s proposed combination is based on the use of
impermissible hindsight.
Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
7
The question of whether Arona-Delonghi is non-analogous art as
urged by appellant (see, for example, pages 7-8 of the main brief)
is a threshold issue in considering the question of obviousness.
Arona-Delonghi pertains to caps for collapsible bottles and
containers that are manufactured to store products in liquid,
semi-liquid or viscous form, in which a tamperproof detachable
section is provided (see column 1, lines 6-8, and the abstract).
The cap of Arona-Delonghi comprises a first member T of plastic
material having on its lower part a locking rib 10 for locking the
first member to the neck of the bottle, and a second member 24
rotatably mounted to the top of the first member (column 2, line
48, through column 3, line 19). To dispense the product stored in
the container, the second member is rotated relative to the first
member to align openings in the first and second members to form an
exit orifice (column 2, lines 20-27).
In an obviousness determination under 35 U.S.C. § 103, art
which is non-analogous is too remote to be treated as prior art.
In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir.
1992). There are two criteria for determining whether art is
analogous: (1) whether the art is from the field of the inventor’s
endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the art
is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether it is
Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
8
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor was involved. Id.
The specification of the instant application indicates that
the field of appellant’s endeavor “relates to threaded tamper
evident container closures” (see page 1), and that a particular
problem with which appellant was involved was to provide “an
improved means of locking threaded tamper-evident closures to the
bottle neck” (see page 2). In our opinion, Arona-Delonghi is at
least reasonably pertinent to this particular problem, and thus
constitutes analogous art which was properly considered by the
examiner in combination with Sander in assessing the obviousness of
the subject matter recited in the appealed claims. In this regard,
we do not agree with appellant’s position to the effect that Arona-
Delonghi must be viewed as non-analogous art simply because it
pertains to a non-threaded tamper-evident container closure.
Concerning the relevance of Arona-Delonghi to the obviousness
issue raised in this appeal, we regard Arona-Delonghi as being
representative of the knowledge in the closure art of providing
flexible, upwardly facing, locking or fastening ribs on the inner
circumferential surface of a closure part for cooperating with a
downwardly facing shoulder on a bottle or container in order to
securely retain the closure part on the bottle or container. In
Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
9
this regard, note column 2, lines 51-55, of Arona-Delonghi (“The
retention member body T has on its lower part, a plurality of
vertically disposed locking or fastening ribs 10, which are
relatively flexible and which lock against the neck or crown of the
bottle in order to prevent its slipping upwardly . . . .”).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure
of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must
be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
In the present case, Arona-Delonghi’s teaching at column 2,
lines 51-55, of providing relatively flexible locking ribs 10 for
retaining the lower closure part on the neck or crown of the bottle
in order to prevent its slipping upwardly would have furnished the
artisan with ample suggestion to substitute flexible hook-shaped
locking ribs as taught by Arona-Delonghi for the projections 16 of
Sander’s tamper-evident band 15. Suggestion for the above is found
in the advantage Arona-Delonghi’s flexible hook-shaped locking ribs
provide of facilitating the positioning of the locking ribs beneath
Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
10
the locking flange on the container neck, which would have been
recognized by the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Concerning appellant’s argument (main brief, page 8) that
Arona-Delonghi “teaches away” from adaptation of any of its
features to a threaded snap-on closure, “[a] reference may be said
to teach away when a person of ordinary skill . . . would be lead
in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by
applicant.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. Inc. v. SGS Importers Int.’l Inc.,
73 F.3d 1085, 1090, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting
In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir.
1994)). To teach away, a reference must indicate that a certain
feature “should not” or “cannot” be used with other features. Id.
Nowhere does Arona-Delonghi state or even suggest that flexible
hook-shaped locking ribs 10 should not be used to retain a tamper-
evident band of a threaded closure to a container. In fact, Arona-
Delonghi’s disclosure at column 2, lines 51-55, and column 3, lines
45-50, of how the locking ribs 10 facilitate installation and
retention of the first closure member T on the neck of the bottle
indicates that the result sought by Arona-Delonghi’s locking ribs
and Sander’s arcuate projections 15 is the same. Thus, Arona-
Delonghi’s teaching regarding the ability of flexible locking ribs
10 to facilitate assembly and retention of a closure part on the
Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
11
neck of a bottle actually teaches an ordinarily skilled artisan to
use locking ribs like the ribs 10 of Arona-Delonghi in Sander’s
closure.
With respect to the argument (main brief, page 9) that “the
cap disclosed in Arona-Delonghi encounters completely different
types of forces during installation and removal that would not
enable its use with Applicant’s claimed [tamper indicating
closure],” we are appraised of no persuasive evidence of record to
support this contention. It is well settled that an argument in
the brief cannot take the place of evidence and that arguments of
counsel, unsupported by competent factual evidence of record, are
entitled to little weight. See In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315, 203
USPQ 245, 256 (CCPA 1979) and In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405,
181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974).
As for the argument that there is no suggestion provided in
Arona-Delonghi which would motivate one skilled in the art to
provide a hook-shaped locking member on the tamper-evident band of
Sander, for the reasons discussed above we simple disagree with
appellant on this point. We also disagree with appellant that the
examiner employed impressible hindsight in rejecting the appealed
claims. More particularly, we consider that the § 103 rejection of
claim 1 takes into account only knowledge which was within the
Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
12
level of ordinary skill at the time the presently claimed invention
was made, i.e., the teachings of Sander and Arona-Delonghi viewed
as a whole, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from
appellant’s disclosure. Appellant’s view to the contrary is not
persuasive because it is predicated on the individual disclosures
of Sander and Arona-Delonghi vis-a-vis the claimed invention.
However, nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the
references individually where, as here, the rejection is based upon
the teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck & Co.
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In light of the above, we consider that the reference evidence
adduced by the examiner establishes a prima facie case of
obviousness of claim 1. Notwithstanding appellant’s statement on
pages 6 and 13-14 of the main brief that the claims stand
independently of each other, appellant has not argued the merits of
claims 2-14, 16-20, 23-27, 31, 32, 37-39 and 42 with any reasonable
degree of specificity. Therefore, we consider that the reference
evidence adduced by the examiner also is sufficient to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness of these claims.
Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
3In order to bring the drawings into compliance with 37 CFR
§ 1.83(a), this claimed feature should be illustrated in the
drawings.
13
The standing rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims
21, 22, 28, 34-36, 41 and 43
Claims 21, 22, 28, 34-36, 41 and 43 have been separately
argued. See pages 14-15 of the main brief.
Claim 21 is directed to a modification of the seal feature
illustrated in Figure 10. Specifically, claim 21 sets forth that
the at least one seal flange “is discontinuous.”3 The examiner’s
position (answer, page 6) to the effect that this feature is taught
by Sander and/or Arona-Delonghi is not well taken. Further, we are
in agreement with appellant that this feature also is not taught or
suggested by Thomas. Accordingly, it is our view that the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 21.
Claim 22 is directed to the plug element feature of the
push-pull pour spout illustrated in Figure 10A. Specifically,
claim 22 calls for the plug to comprise a circular disk and a
depending skirt extending from the disk to define a hollow cavity
within the plug. The examiner states (answer, page 8) that this
feature is taught by Sanders; however, we do not agree. Because we
do not view the combined teachings of Sander, Arona-Delonghi and
Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
14
Thomas as teaching or suggesting the subject matter of claim 22, we
consider that the examiner has not established a prima facie case
of obviousness of claim 22.
Claims 28 and 43 set forth that the at least one frangible
element of the tamper-evident band of the pour spout is connected
to the annular wall thereof “from” a second elevated bridge
portion. Sander teaches (1) that the first tamper-evident band 15
carried by the annular wall 13 should include elevated bridge
portions 35 for protecting the frangible elements 14 during molding
and assembly (column 2, line 60 through column 3, line 3), and (2)
that the frangible elements 14 may interconnect the band 15 to the
annular wall 13 either between or from the elevated bridge portions
35 (see, for example, Figures 1-3). Sander further teaches (3)
that the second tamper-evident band 30 carried by the annular wall
28 of the pour spout should include upstanding stops 29A (i.e.,
elevated bridge portions) (see Figures 3 and 4 and column 2, lines
18-20), which elevated stops are presumably provided for the same
purpose as the elevated bridge portions 35 of the first
tamper-evident band. Based on these reference teachings, we
consider that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice
to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the frangible
elements 29 for Sander’s second tamper-evident band in the same
Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
4Compare In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 8-9
(CCPA 1975) (“Use of such a means of electrical connection in
lieu of those used in the references solves no stated problem and
would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of
the art.” (citations omitted)); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672-
73, 149 USPQ 47, 50 (CCPA 1966) (“Appellants have presented no
argument which convinces us that the particular configuration of
their container is significant or is anything more than one of
numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art
would find obvious for the purpose of providing mating surfaces
in the collapsed container of [the applied reference].” (citation
omitted)).
15
manner as the frangible elements 14 of the first tamper-evident
band, i.e., either between or from the elevated bridge portions of
the tamper-evident band. Our view in this regard is bolstered by
the circumstance that the record before us does not indicate any
particular advantage of one location over the other.4 Based on
this determination, we conclude that the reference evidence adduced
by the examiner also is sufficient to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness of claims 28 and 43.
Claim 34 depends from claim 32 and sets forth that the third
tamper indicating ring recited in claim 32 (i.e., the tamper
indicating ring for attaching the cover 90 to the closure)
“includes at least one annular bead for engaging at least one
annular bead positioned on said closure.” The examiner has relied
on Beck ‘374 for a teaching of this feature, referring us
specifically to the showing in Beck ‘374 of “a cover 10; ring 36;
Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
16
beads 42 and at 109” (answer, page 5). However, the ring 36 of
Beck ‘374 is akin to the tamper-evident ring 15 of Sander.
Moreover, the cover of Beck ‘374 is connected to the closure by a
tamper indicating frangible webs 31 that do not comprise annular
beads on the cover and closure. Based on the disparity between
what is being claimed and that which is taught by Beck ‘374, we
conclude that the examiner has not established a prima facie case
of obviousness claim 34, or claims 35 and 36 that depend therefrom.
Claim 41 depends from claim 31 and calls for the cover of
claim 31 to be configured for “snap-on” installation. The examiner
again relies on Beck ‘374 for a teaching of this claim feature.
Because we do not agree with the examiner that the additional
“snap-on” feature for the cover called for in claim 41 is taught by
Beck ‘374, we conclude that a prima facie case of obviousness of
this claim has not been established.
To summarize the above, we conclude that the reference
evidence adduced by the examiner is sufficient to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness of claims 28 and 43, but is not
sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claims
21, 22, 34-36 and 41.
Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
5See, for example, Simmons Fastener Corp. v. Illinois Tool
Works, Inc., 739 F.2d 1573, 1575, 222 USPQ 744, 746 (Fed. Cir.
1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1065 (1985), and Stratoflex Inc. v.
Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1539, 218 USPQ 871, 879 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
17
The “AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 1.132” by inventor
Charles J. Long, Jr.
Although the statements of Mr. Long found in the paper filed
on April 12, 1999 are not evidence as earlier indicated, the points
raised by Mr. Long have been considered.
At the outset, we observe that there is no factual support in
the record before us for the statements made by Mr. Long in his
“affidavit” regarding the revenue and market share of the “28mm
Sport Cap” said to embody features of the claimed invention. In
any event, assuming that over $11 million in revenue have been
derived from sales of the “28mm Sport Cap,” and that such sales
represent an increase in market share from zero to 15%, as alleged
by Mr. Long in paragraph 2, a proper nexus between market success
and the merits of the claimed invention must be established in
order for any such showing of commercial success to be accorded
substantial weight.5 In the present case, a proper nexus has not
been established. For example, in paragraph 3(a) of Mr. Long’s
statement, it is stated that the commercial success of the “28mm
Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
6Vandenberg v. Dairy Equip. Co., 740 F.2d 1560, 1567, 224
USPQ 195, 199 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
7In re Cavanagh, 436 F.2d 491, 496, 168 USPQ 466, 471 (CCPA
1971).
18
Sport Cap” is attributable to the “hook-shaped flange of the
present invention.” However, the appealed claims do not require a
“hook-shaped” flange on any of the tamper-evident rings. Moreover,
for all the record shows, the $11 million in revenue and increased
rate of sales for the “28mm Sport Cap” could just as easily be
attributable to increased popularity of the sports beverages
contained in the bottles to which the closures were applied.
As to Mr. Long’s statement in paragraph 5 that the advantages
of the appellant’s cap “satisfy a long felt need” in the art, in
order to establish long felt but unresolved need it must be
demonstrated that a problem has been recognized in the art and
remained unsolved over a long period of time,6 and that the claimed
invention satisfied the long felt need.7 Mr. Long’s statements do
not address these issues. Instead, they merely allege, without any
factual support, that the claimed invention satisfied a long felt
need.
Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
19
In light of the above, the statements of Mr. Long found in the
paper filed on April 12, 1999, do not convince us that the examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-14, 16-20, 23-28, 31, 32, 37-39, 42 and
43.
III. Remand
This case is remanded to the examiner for consideration of the
following matter.
As noted above, claim 34 sets forth that the third tamper
indicating ring recited in claim 32 (i.e., the tamper indicating
ring for attaching the cover 90 to the closure) “includes at least
one annular bead for engaging at least one annular bead positioned
on said closure,” and claim 41 calls for the cover of claim 31 to
be configured for “snap-on” installation. U.S. Patent 5,328,063 to
Beck, of record, discloses an overcap 16. As described by Beck
‘063 at column 3, lines 61-66:
. . . to snappingly engage the overcap 16 to the post 12,
the overcap 16 includes an internal annular rib 52. The
rib 52 seats within the recess 50 of the post 12 when the
overcap 16 is assembled to the post 12. If desired, a
tamper-indicating strap or tape (not illustrated) can be
utilized.
The examiner should (1) determine whether Beck ‘063, in
combination with other prior art of record, renders any of claims
34-36 and 41 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and (2) take
Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
20
whatever action is deemed appropriate in view of said
determination.
IV. Summary
The rejection of claims 42 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1-14, 37-39 and 42 as being
unpatentable over Sander in view of Arona-Delonghi is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 16-28 and 43 as being unpatentable
over Sander in view of Arona-Delonghi and Thomas is affirmed as to
claims 16-20, 23-28 and 43, but is reversed as to claims 21 and 22.
The rejection of claims 31, 32, 34-36 and 41 as being
unpatentable over Sander in view of Arona-Delonghi, Thomas and Beck
‘374 is affirmed as to claims 31 and 32, but is reversed as to
claims 34-36 and 41.
In addition, this case is remanded to the examiner for
consideration of the matter noted above.
Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
21
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
NEAL E. ABRAMS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge )
LJS/lp
Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
22
THOMAS C. WETTACH
COHEN & GRINGSBY, P.C.
11 STANWIX STREET, 15, FLOOR