onecle

Ex Parte Drake 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                                is not binding precedent of the Board.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 JAVIT A. DRAKE, WILLIAM H. WILSON, and                              
                                        MATTHEW S. KLEE                                             
                                        ________________                                            
                                         Appeal 2007-0489                                           
                                       Application 10/190,822                                       
                                      Technology Center 1700                                        
                                        ________________                                            
                                       Decided: July 30, 2007                                       
                                        ________________                                            

              Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and                                       
              JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.                                       
              SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                   

                                      DECISION ON APPEAL                                            
                                        Statement of the Case                                       
                    This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134 from a final rejection of               
              claims 9-12, 15-19, 26, and 28-38.  We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.              
               6.                                                                                  
                    Appellants invented a fuel cell system that includes a main fuel cell, a        
              fuel stream delivery system, an oxidant stream delivery system, and a sensor          
                                                                                                   



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

Last modified: September 9, 2013