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is not binding precedent of the Board.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