1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
2 not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
3
4
5 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
6 _____________
7
8 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
9 AND INTERFERENCES
10 _____________
11
12 Ex parte STEPHEN F. GASS and DAVID S. D’ASCENZO
13 _____________
14
15 Appeal No. 2007-0266
16 Application No. 09/929,227
17 Technology Center 3700
18 ______________
19
20 Decided: April 30, 2007
21 _______________
22
22 Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, and JENNIFER D.
23
23 BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
24
25
25 PATE, III, Administrative Patent Judge.
26
27
28
29 DECISION ON APPEAL
30 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
31
32 This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 19 and 31. These
33 are the only claims remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35
34 U.S.C. § 134.
35 The claimed subject matter is directed to a woodworking machine with a
36 detection system that detects a dangerous condition with respect to the operator.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013