Ex Parte Jiang 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          not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the             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.                                                                      

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                     __________                                       
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                     __________                                       
                     Ex parte TONGBI JIANG and EDWARD A. SCHROCK                      
                            ___________                                               
                                Appeal No. 2004-2144                                  
                             Application No. 09/483,712                               
                                     __________                                       
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                      _________                                       
          Before WALTZ, DELMENDO, and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent              
          Judges.                                                                     
          WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         

          DECISION ON APPEAL                                                          
               This is a decision on an appeal from the primary examiner’s            
          final rejection of claims 1 through 20.  The remaining claims in            
          this application are claims 21 through 29, which stand withdrawn            
          from further consideration as directed to a non-elected invention           
          (Brief, page 2).  We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C.                
          § 134.                                                                      
               According to appellants, the invention is directed to chip-            
          scale semiconductor packages in a ball grid array configuration             





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007