1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
2 for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board
3
4 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
5 ____________________
6
7 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
8 AND INTERFERENCES
9 ____________________
10
11 Ex parte ARVIND NATH PURI, VIJ DEEPAK and
12 GALINA ATLAS PATIL
13 ____________________
14
15 Appeal 2006-2678
16 Application 09/235,120
17 Technology Center 1700
18 ____________________
19
20 Decided: July 16, 2007
21 ____________________
22
23 Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN and
24 ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
25
26 CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
27
28
29 DECISION ON APPEAL
30
31 STATEMENT OF CASE
32 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection
33 of claims 1 to 7, 9 to 12 and 14 to 18, 21 to 24, 26 and 27. Claims 8, 13, 19,
34 20 and 25 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
35 (2002).
36
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013