1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
2 for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
3
4
5 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
6 ____________
7
8 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
9 AND INTERFERENCES
10 ____________
11
12 Ex parte RISTO PEKKA ANTERO NOKELAINEN
13 ____________
14
15 Appeal No. 2006-1956
16 Application No. 09/935,917
17 Technology Center 3700
18 ____________
19
20 Decided: February 27, 2007
21 ____________
22
23 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and
24 ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.
25
26 BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
27
28
29 DECISION ON APPEAL
30
31 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
32 Risto Pekka Antero Nokelainen (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C.
33 § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 11, 14, 15, 17, 22,
34 23, 27, 28, 30, and 35-38. Claims 3-10, 12, 13, 16, 18-21, 24-26, 29, and
35 31-34 have been withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction over
36 this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013