Ex Parte Barber et al - Page 1


                            The opinion in support of the decision being entered                             
                                today is not binding precedent of the Board.                                 
                         UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                           
                                                ____________                                                 
                              BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                             
                                          AND INTERFERENCES                                                  
                                                ____________                                                 
                   Ex parte DANIEL BARBER, JAMES KING, STERETT ROBERTSON,                                    
                        SCOTT RAY, MALCOLM WARREN, ANTON ARNOLDY,                                            
                  MICK A. TROMPEN, STANLEY M. GORGACZ, and DENNIS WUJEK                                      
                                                ____________                                                 
                                            Appeal No. 2007-0205                                             
                                         Application No. 09/812,302                                          
                                           Technology Center 2600                                            
                                                ____________                                                 
                                          Decided: August 30, 2007                                           
                                                ____________                                                 
                Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and                                           
                JEAN R. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                
                SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                         

                                          DECISION ON APPEAL                                                 
                                        STATEMENT OF THE CASE                                                
                   This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s                 
                Final Rejection of claims 1-10, 12, 13, 16-20, 22-26, 29-31, 33, 34, 43-47,                  
                49-53, 55-60, 62, 63, 66-69, and 71-81.  Claims 36-42 are allowed while                      
                claims 11, 14, 15, 21, 27, 28, 32, 35, 48, 54, 61, 64, 65, and 70 have been                  
                objected to, but otherwise allowable if rewritten in independent form to include             






Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013