The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 HAROLD V. PUTMAN and DALE KLINGSHIRN
____________
Appeal No. 2005-2622
Application No. 09/923,089
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, BARRY, and NAPPI, and, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
I. BACKGROUND
A patent examiner rejected claims 1-40. The appellants appealed therefrom
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We affirmed-in-part. Ex parte Putman, No. 2005-2622, at 1
(Bd.Pat.App. & Int. 2005). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1), the appellants now ask
us to reconsider our affirmance of claims 1-13, 18, 19, 26, 27, 29, 37, and 38.
II. OPINION
"Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
focus on the point of contention therebetween." Ex parte Muresan, No. 2004-1621,
2005 WL 951659, at *1 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. Feb 10, 2005). The examiner asserts that in
U.S. Patent No. 6,378,770 ("Clark"), a "control unit will display proper information on the
display device after determining source of the input devices that is used by user or
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007