1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered
2 today is not binding precedent of the Board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 JOSEPH J. HARDING
12 ____________________
13
14 Appeal 2006-3186
15 Application 10/700,364
16 Technology Center 3700
17 ____________________
18
19 Decided: September 12, 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 12-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
33 Appellant invented a packaging system for providing a controlled
34 quantity of dunnage material for top-filling a container in which one or more
35 objects are packed for shipping (Specification 1).
36 Claim 12 under appeal reads as follows:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013