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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 MARK L. MATHIS, GREGORY D. NIEMINEN,
NATHAN ARONSON, and GARRETT BEGET
____________
Appeal 2006-2249
Application 10/429,172
Technology Center 3700
____________
Decided: May 24, 2007
____________
Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and
CHARLES F. WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal the final rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
INTRODUCTION
Appellants claim a device for modifying the shape of tissue adjacent
to a lumen (Claim 1). Appellants’ device includes a proximal anchor (52), a
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013