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2 for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board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 BERNARDUS JOHANNES PRONK
12 ____________________
13
14 Appeal 2007-1786
15 Application 10/121,3651
16 Technology Center 3700
17 ____________________
18
19 Decided: June 22, 2007
20 ____________________
21
22 Before: WILLIAM F. PATE, III, TERRY J. OWENS, and STUART S.
23 LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
24
25 LEVY, Administrative Patent Judge.
26
27
28 DECISION ON APPEAL
29
30 STATEMENT OF CASE
31 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection
32 of claims 1-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
33 Appellant invented a medical imaging device, method, and computer
34 program for use in a safety critical environment. (Specification 1.) In
1 Application filed April 12, 2002. The real party in interest is Koniklijke
Phillips Electronics N.V.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013