Ex parte MARSHALL - Page 1




                                                       Paper No. 25                   
               THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION                           
          The opinion in support of the decision being entered today                  
          (1) was not written for publication in a law journal and                    
          (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.                                  

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                   _______________                                    
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                   _______________                                    
                              Ex parte ANDREW MARSHALL                                
                                   ______________                                     
                                Appeal No. 1997-1389                                  
                              Application 08/642,811                                  
                                   _______________                                    
                              ON BRIEF                                                
                                   _______________                                    
          Before THOMAS, FLEMING and GROSS, Administrative Patent                     
          Judges.                                                                     
          THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                        
                                                                                     
                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner's                
          final rejection of claims 1 through 5, which constitute all                 
          the claims in the application.                                              
               Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:                            
               1.  A bridge control circuit for substantially                         
          eliminating shoot-through current comprising:                               

                                          1                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007