Ex Parte Vigil 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                                       is not binding precedent of the Board.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 JEFF S. VIGIL and MICHAEL J. DETLEF                                                
                                                  Appeal 2007-2343                                                       
                                               Application 09/928,856                                                    
                                              Technology Center 2100                                                     
                                            Decided: September 27, 2007                                                  
                 Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP,                                                       
                 and MAHSHID D. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                    
                 SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                    

                                              DECISION ON APPEAL                                                         
                                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE                                                         
                        Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134(a) from the Examiner’s                                   
                 rejection of claims 1-3, 7-19, 23-34, and 37-40, which are all of the claims                            
                 pending in this application, as claims 4-6, 20-22, 35, and 36 have been                                 
                 canceled.  We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.  6(b).                                                 
                        Appellants invented a hand-held wireless telecommunications device                               
                 that is configured to send a message to a recipient over a global computer                              

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013