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2 for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board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 SIMON ANNE DE MOLINA
12 ____________________
13
14 Appeal 2006-3100
15 Application 10/662,547
16 Technology Center 3600
17 ____________________
18
19 Decided: August 29, 2007
20 ____________________
21
22 Before: TERRY J. OWENS, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, and DAVID B.
23 WALKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
24
25 CRAWFORD, 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 claims 7 to 15 and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
33 (2002).
34 Appellant invented a shock absorber having a sliding sleeve which
35 moves progressively to close off one of the two flow paths, which in turn
36 provide a firm damping (Specification 1 to 3).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013