1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
2 for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board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 HENRY MICHAELS BEISNER
12 ____________________
13
14 Appeal 2007-1083
15 Application 09/847,0931
16 Technology Center 3600
17 ____________________
18
19 Decided: August 28, 2007
20 ____________________
21
22 Before: TERRY J. OWENS, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, and
23 DAVID WALKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
24
25 CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
26
27 DECISION ON APPEAL
28
29 STATEMENT OF CASE
30 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection
31 of claims 8-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
32 Appellant invented an adaptive filter to reduce multi-path
33 (Specification 1.)
1 Application filed May 2, 2001. The real party in interest is the Appellant.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013