onecle

Ex Parte Gerstmar - Page 1



           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           2              for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board                           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 GAIL L. GERSTMAR                                               
          12                              ____________________                                                
          13                                                                                                  
          14                                 Appeal 2007-0270                                                 
          15                               Application 10/434,712                                             
          16                              Technology Center 3700                                              
          17                              ____________________                                                
          18                                                                                                  
          19                              Decided:  March 30, 2007                                            
          20                              ____________________                                                
          21                                                                                                  
          22    Before:  TERRY J. OWENS, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, and                                             
          23    STUART S. LEVY, 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 1-5 and 7.  We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.  6(b) (2002).                     
          33          Appellant invented a modular cervical support and redefinition                          
          34    structure (Specification 1).                                                                  
          35          Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reads as follows:                        
          36                                                                                                  




Page:  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013