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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 TORSTEN HAGEN, FRIEDHELM KAMPER,
DANIEL KOCH and HEINZ-HERBERT MULLER
________________
Appeal 2006-2775
Application 10/606,399
Technology Center 1700
________________
Decided: September 28, 2006
________________
Before GARRIS, WARREN, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative
Patent Judges.
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 9 to 11,
19, and 20. Claims 8, 18, and 20 to 24 have been indicated as containing
allowable subject matter (Br. 3). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134.1
1 In rendering this decision, we have considered Appellants’ position
presented in the Briefs filed November 7, 2005 and March 27, 2006, and the
Examiner’s position presented in the Answer mailed January 30, 2006.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007