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2 for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board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 WARREN F. YOUNG
12 ____________________
13
14 Appeal 2007-0009
15 Application 10/345,4611
16 Technology Center 3600
17 ____________________
18
19 Decided: April 10, 2007
20 ____________________
21
22 Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, STUART S. LEVY, and
23 LINDA E. HORNER, 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 claims 1, 2, 4, and 5. Claim 3 has been allowed (Br. 1). We have
33 jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
1 Application filed January 17, 2003. The real party in interest is the
inventor (Br. 1).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013