The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte KAREN P. SHRIER; GERALD R. BEHLING;
JAMES B. INTRATER; KAILASH C. JOSHI; and WILLIAM W. ALSTON, JR.
____________
Appeal No. 2002-0510
Application No. 09/139,309
____________
HEARD: Feb. 11, 2003
____________
Before THOMAS, BARRY, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A patent examiner rejected claims 5-20 and 30-32. The appellants appeal
therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1 We affirm-in-part.
BACKGROUND
The invention at issue on appeal protects electronic circuits and equipment from
overvoltage transients caused by lightning, electromagnetic pulses, electrostatic
discharges, or power surges. Voltage transients can induce high currents and voltages
1The appellants do not argue the rejections of claim 29. (Appeal Brief, pages 3
and 5). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as to this claim.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007