1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding precedent
2 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 MICHAEL PAUL WOLF, DAVID L. KREBIEHL, FORREST S. SEITZ,
12 STANLEY K. SASAKI, and SCOTT B. LONG
13 ___________
14
15 Appeal 2007-1326
16 Application 10/237,067
17 Technology Center 3600
18 ___________
19
20 Decided: June 21, 2007
21 ___________
22
23 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, LINDA E. HORNER and ANTON W. FETTING,
24 Administrative Patent Judges.
25 FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
26 DECISION ON APPEAL
27
28
29 STATEMENT OF CASE
30 This appeal from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 106, 107, 109, 114-118,
31 120, 122, 127, 128, 135-140, 149-152, 154, 159-163, 165, 167, 172, 173, 180-185,
32 and 194-205 arises under 35 U.S.C. § 134. Claim 119 and 164 are objected to, but
33 not rejected. The remaining claims have been either cancelled or withdrawn from
34 consideration. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.
35
36 We AFFIRM.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013