The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
12 written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
3
4 Paper 37
5
6
7 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
8 __________
9
10 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
11 AND INTERFERENCES
12 __________
13
14 Ex parte SAF-T-GLO, Ltd.
15 __________
16
17 Appeal No. 2006-0699
18 Reexamination Control No. 90/005,937
19 Reexamination of United States Patent 5,961,0721
20 ___________
21
22 ON BRIEF
23 ___________
24
25
26 Before MARTIN, LEE, and MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
27
28 MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
29
30 DECISION ON APPEAL
31 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(b) from the final
32 rejection of claims 27-29 of this reexamination. Claims 1, 3-5,
33 7, 9-18, 22, 23, and 26 have been cancelled. The Examiner has
34 confirmed the patentability of claims 2, 6, 8, 19-21, 24, and 25.
35 The Examiner has also found new claim 30 to be patentable. Thus,
36 only claims 27-29 are before us on this appeal.
37
38
1 Reexamination Request Filed by Astronics Corporation, a third party.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007