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2 for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board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