Ex Parte Medin et al - Page 1




              The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 12            
                        UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                             
                                                 ____________                                                 
                             BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                               
                                          AND INTERFERENCES                                                   
                                                 ____________                                                 
                  Ex parte DAVID T. MEDIN, TODD A. HERMANSON, AND SCOTT L. KAYSER                             
                                                 ____________                                                 
                                             Appeal No. 2002-0540                                             
                                           Application No. 09/589,434                                         
                                                 ____________                                                 
                                                   ON BRIEF                                                   
                                                 ____________                                                 
            Before HAIRSTON, DIXON, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.                                  
            BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                               


                                            DECISION ON APPEAL                                                
                   A patent examiner rejected claims 1-15, 17-20, and 22.  The appellants appeal              
            therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).  We reverse.                                                  


                                               BACKGROUND                                                     
                   The invention at issue on appeal is used to add memory to "industrial personal             
            computers."  (Spec. at 1.)  According to the appellants, rows of industrial personal              
            computers ("PCS") are stored in racks.  Each row includes multiple PCS; "the PCS are              
            coupled to wiring associated with the rack and other equipment. . . ."  (Id. at 5.)               








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

Last modified: November 3, 2007