Ex Parte Budinger et al - Page 1

                           The opinion in support of the decision being entered today                                  
                                      is not binding precedent of the Board.                                           

                          UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                    
                                BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                     
                                             AND INTERFERENCES                                                         
                      Ex parte DAVID EDWIN BUDINGER, BRENT ROSS THOLKE,                                                
                 MATTHEW NICKLUS MILLER, WARREN DAVIS GROSSKLAUS, JR.,                                                 
                        JOSHUA LEIGH MILLER, and MELVIN ROBERT JACKSON                                                 
                                                 Appeal 2007-0882                                                      
                                              Application 10/702,987                                                   
                                              Technology Center 1700                                                   
                                              Decided:  June 27, 2007                                                  
                 Before PETER F. KRATZ, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and                                                         
                 LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                      
                 GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                

                                             DECISION ON APPEAL                                                        
                        This is an appeal from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-19                           
                 and 21, the only claims pending in this application.  We have jurisdiction                            
                 over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C.  6(b) (2006).                                                  
                        Appellant’s invention relates to a process for repairing a nickel-base                         
                 superalloy article, such as a gas turbine stationary flowpath shroud.                                 
                 Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the invention:                                                 

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013