onecle

Ex Parte Cheung et al - Page 1





        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        2               for publication in and is not binding precedent of the Board.                         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 NANCY C. CHEUNG and RUPINDER S. KATARIA                                        
       12                                       ___________                                                   
       13                                                                                                     
       14                                    Appeal 2007-0717                                                 
       15                                  Application 09/993,277                                             
       16                                 Technology Center 2100                                              
       17                                       ___________                                                   
       18                                                                                                     
       19                                  Decided: May 18, 2007                                              
       20                                       ___________                                                   
       21                                                                                                     
       22   Before HUBERT C. LORIN, STUART S. LEVY and ANTON W. FETTING,                                      
       23   Administrative Patent Judges.                                                                     
       24   FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                             

       25                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                                  
       26                                                                                                     
       27                                                                                                     
       28                                 STATEMENT OF CASE                                                   
       29       This appeal from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20, the only claims                     
       30   pending in this application, arises under 35 U.S.C.  134.  We have jurisdiction                  
       31   over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C.  6.                                                        

       32                                                                                                     
       33       We AFFIRM.                                                                                    










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

Last modified: September 9, 2013