onecle

Ex Parte Mays - Page 1



          1           The opinion in support of the decision being entered today                   
          2                     is not binding precedent of the Board                              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 WESLEY M. MAYS                                        
         12                          ____________________                                          
         13                                                                                        
         14                              Appeal 2007-2818                                          
         15                           Application 10/620,731                                       
         16                          Technology Center 3600                                        
         17                          ____________________                                          
         18                                                                                        
         19                         Decided: September 26, 2007                                    
         20                          ____________________                                          
         21                                                                                        
         22   Before:  MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN and                                    
         23   LINDA E. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judges.                                       
         24                                                                                        
         25   CRAWFORD, 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 44 and 48 to 56.   Claims 1 to 43 and 45 have been cancelled.              
         33   Claims 46 and 47 have been allowed.  We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.            
         34    6(b) (2002).                                                                       
         35         Appellant’s invention is directed to an automatic barrier operator             
         36   system (Specification 1).                                                            




Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013