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2 for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board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 IAN PEEK
12 ____________________
13
14 Appeal 2006-3098
15 Application 10/762,4131
16 Technology Center 3700
17 ____________________
18
19 Decided: March 26, 2007
20 ____________________
21
22 Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, STUART S. LEVY, and ROBERT E.
23 NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.
24
25 LEVY, Administrative Patent Judge.
26
27
28 DECISION ON APPEAL
29
30 STATEMENT OF CASE
31 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection
32 of claim 11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
33 Appellant invented a golf training apparatus (Specification 3). In
34 particular, the invention resides in a golf apparatus for practicing straight
1 Application filed January 22, 2004. The real party in interest is Mr. Yan
Peek.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013