1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding
2 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 HARRY BUSSEY, JR. and HARRY (BUDDY) BUSSEY, III
12 ____________________
13
14 Appeal 2006-2859
15 Application 11/062,725
16 Technology Center 3700
17 ____________________
18
19 Decided: July 31, 2007
20 ____________________
21
22 Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and LINDA E.
23 HORNER Administrative Patent Judges.
24
25 CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
26
27
28 DECISION ON APPEAL
29
30 STATEMENT OF CASE
31 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a Final
32 Rejection of claims 1 to 11. Claims 12 to 20 have been withdrawn from
33 consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
34 Appellants invented a packaging module comprising a porous
35 deformable membrane with a mass of loose fill elements. The porous
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013