The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte DOUGLAS R. DOMEL and WINSTON G. WALKER
________________
Appeal No. 2006-07421
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,0132
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before: SPIEGEL, DELMENDO and TIERNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SPIEGEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 17, 18, 21, 27, 28, 30 and 48. The patentability of claims
1, 2, 5-16, 19, 20, 22-26, 29, 31 and 33-47 has been confirmed. Claims 3, 4 and
32 have been cancelled.
We affirm-in-part.
1 The application on appeal was received at the Board on 01 September 2005.
2 Application for patent filed 18 May 2001 as an ex parte re-exam of U.S. Patent No. 5,883,480
issued from application 09/014,514, filed 28 January 1998, which is a continuation of application
08/923,812, now U.S. Patent No. 6,060,852, which is a continuation-in-part of application
08/559,467, filed 15 November 1995, now U.S. Patent No. 5,698,958. The real party-in-interest
is Harmonic Design, Inc.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007