Ex Parte Quintana 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              not binding precedent of the Board.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 ANGELICA QUINTANA                                                        
                                                 AND TED ZIEMKOWSKI                                                            
                                                         __________                                                            
                                                    Appeal No. 2006-2750                                                       
              Application No. 10/104,498                                                                                       
                                                        ___________                                                            
                                                         ON BRIEF                                                              
                                                        ___________                                                            
              Before HAIRSTON, RUGGIERO, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.                                             
              HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                           

                                                      DECISION ON APPEAL                                                       
                      This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 through 50.  In the answer, the                   
              examiner indicated that claims 3, 4, 15, 25 and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a                     
              rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the                
              limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.  Accordingly, claims 1, 2, 5 through 14,               
              16 through 24 and 27 through 50 remain before us on appeal.                                                      
                      The disclosed invention relates to a method and system for recording a history of uses                   
              made of an image file in an electronic event log.                                                                









Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007