Ex Parte Voleti 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         not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the            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 SREEKANTH VOLETI,                             
                              RAJASEKHAR VALLABHANENI,                              
                              and KAMAL RAJU VENKATESH                              
                                    __________                                      
                                Appeal No. 2006-2336                                
                             Application No. 09/849,916                             
                                    ___________                                     
                                      ON BRIEF                                      
                                    ___________                                     
         Before KRASS, BARRY, and HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judges.             
         HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.                                       

                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                 
              This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the           
         final rejection of claims 1 through 11, 13 through 16 and 18               
         through 20, all of which are pending in this application.  Claims          
         12 and 17 have been objected to by the Examiner.  Claims 21                
         through 23 have been allowed.                                              

         We reverse.                                                                






Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007