Ex Parte Lee et al - 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                             for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 CHINMEI CHEN LEE and DOUGLAS WILLIAM VARNEY                                     
                                               __________                                                  
                                            Appeal 2007-0638                                               
                                         Application 09/933,655                                            
                                         Technology Center 2600                                            
                                               __________                                                  
                                         Decided: May 16, 2007                                             
                                               __________                                                  
               Before DONALD E. ADAMS, TONI R. SCHEINER, and                                               
               ERIC GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                  
               GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                        


                                        DECISION ON APPEAL                                                 
                      This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134 involving claims to a wireless               
               communication system and a method of controlling surveillance.  The                         
               Examiner has rejected the claims as anticipated or obvious.  We have                        
               jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.  6(b).  We affirm.                                            
                                            BACKGROUND                                                     
                      The Specification describes “a method of initiating surveillance” in                 
               which “a mobile terminal subscriber can seize control of and direct                         




Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013