1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
2 for publication in and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 ALEX HOLTZ, ROBERT SNYDER, CHARLES HOEPPNER,
12 GILBERTO FRES, and KEITH G. TINGLE
13 ___________
14
15 Appeal 2007-0595
16 Application 09/822,855
17 Technology Center 2100
18 ___________
19
20 Decided: April 18, 2007
21 ___________
22
23 Before ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, STUART S. LEVY, and ANTON W.
23 FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
24
25 FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
26 DECISION ON APPEAL
27
28
29 STATEMENT OF CASE
30 This appeal from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-14, the only claims
31 pending in this application, arises under 35 U.S.C. § 134. We have jurisdiction
32 over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.
33
34 We AFFIRM.
35
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013