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2 for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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
5 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
6 __________________
7
8 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
9 AND INTERFERENCES
10 _________________
11
12 Ex parte DAVID J. EDLUND,
13 ARNE LAVEN, WILLIAM A. PLEDGER, and CURTISS RENN
14
15 Appeal 2007-0492
16 Application 10/810,9601
17 Technology Center 1700
18 ________________
19
20 Decided: April 16, 2007
21 ________________
22
23
24 Before: RICHARD E. SCHAFER, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and MARK NAGUMO,
25 Administrative Patent Judges.
26
27 NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
28
29 DECISION ON APPEAL
30 A. Statement of the Case
31 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1–3,
32 6–10, 13, 16, 19, 20, 27–29, 31, 33–36, and 44–68 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
33 over various references. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons
34 that follow, we affirm.
35
1 Application for patent filed 25 March 2004. The real party in
interest is identified as IdaTech, LLC.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013