Ex Parte Stryer 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                                   is not binding precedent of the Board.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 LUBERT STRYER and SERGEY ZOZULYA                                          
                                               ____________                                                  
                                            Appeal 2007-18191                                                
                                          Application 09/886,055                                             
                                          Technology Center 1600                                             
                                               ____________                                                  
                                         Decided: August 27, 2007                                            
                                               ____________                                                  

                Before DONALD E. ADAMS, LORA M. GREEN, and NANCY J. LINCK,                                   
                Administrative Patent Judges.                                                                
                Opinion by ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.  Dissenting Opinion by                        
                Linck, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                          

                                         DECISION ON APPEAL                                                  
                      This appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134 involves claims 23-33.  While                        
                Appellants’ Brief identifies claim 24 as withdrawn from consideration                        
                                                                                                            
                1 Appellants’ representative failed to appear for the scheduled June 5, 2007                 
                hearing.  Accordingly, we treat Appellants’ failure to appear as a waiver of                 
                their request for oral hearing (MPEP  1209).  Accordingly, we considered                    
                this appeal on Brief.                                                                        



Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013