Ex Parte DUGGAL 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          not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the             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. 27              
                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                     __________                                       
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                     __________                                       
                   Ex parte ANIL R. DUGGAL and LIONEL M. LEVINSON                     
                                     __________                                       
                                Appeal No. 2000-2037                                  
                             Application No. 08/810,055                               
                                     __________                                       
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                     __________                                       
          Before LALL, GROSS, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent                  
          Judges.                                                                     
          LALL, 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 3, 5, 6, 11, 13, 14 and 17-            
          20, all the pending claims in the application.                              
               According to appellants (brief at pages 2-6), the disclosed            
          invention relates to a current limiting arrangement for general             

                                          1                                           




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007