Ex parte CRANE et al. - Page 1




             The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
             for publication in a law journal and is not binding precedent of the Board.
                                                                 Paper No. 37         
                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                      
                                     ____________                                     
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                          
                                   AND INTERFERENCES                                  
                                     ____________                                     
                     Ex parte STEPHEN E. CRANE, LEEANN HERRINGER,                     
                         MICHAEL SHINSKY, GERALD A. RAITZER,                          
                        MICHAEL A. OGRINC, and STEVEN T. MAYER                        
                                     ____________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 1998-1397                                 
                              Application No. 08/482,905                              
                                     ____________                                     
                                       ON BRIEF                                       
                                     ____________                                     
          Before KRASS, FLEMING, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.             
          BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         


                                  DECISION ON APPEAL                                  
               This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134 from                
          the  rejection of claims 21-42.  We reverse.                                


                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               The invention at issue in this appeal relates to video                 
          editing.  Various methods of video editing are well known.                  
          For tape-based editing, an editor cycles source tapes back and              








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

Last modified: November 3, 2007