onecle

Ex Parte Uebbing - Page 1



                 The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written                 
                         for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.                         

                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                            
                                              ____________                                                  
                             BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                             
                                         AND INTERFERENCES                                                  
                                              ____________                                                  
                                       Ex parte JOHN J. UEBBING                                             
                                              ____________                                                  
                                            Appeal 2007-0597                                                
                                          Application 10/423,523                                            
                                         Technology Center 2600                                             
                                              ____________                                                  
                                          Decided: May 2, 2007                                              
                                              ____________                                                  

               Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP,                                           
               and ALLEN R. MACDONALD,  Administrative Patent Judges.                                       
               HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                       

                                        DECISION ON APPEAL                                                  
                                      STATEMENT OF THE CASE                                                 
                      Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C.  134 from a Final Rejection of                     
               claims 1 to 20.  We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.  6(b).                                
                      Appellant has invented a camera system and method in which a low-                     
               resolution camera with a plurality of image sensing regions controls the                     
               powering on of a plurality of high resolution cameras.  Each of the high-                    




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

Last modified: September 9, 2013