Ex Parte Charisius et al - Page 1



                         The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is                             
                                      not binding precedent of the Board.                                          

                         UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                 
                                                 ____________                                                      
                               BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                  
                                           AND INTERFERENCES                                                       
                                                 ____________                                                      
                            Ex parte DIETRICH CHARISIUS and PETER COAD                                             
                                                 ____________                                                      
                                               Appeal 2006-2496                                                    
                                            Application 09/944,696                                                 
                                            Technology Center 2100                                                 
                                                 ____________                                                      
                                         Decided: September 18, 2007                                               
                                                 ____________                                                      

                Before JAMES D. THOMAS, ALLEN R. MACDONALD,                                                        
                and JAY P. LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                    
                THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                               


                                           DECISION ON APPEAL                                                      
                       This appeal involves claims 3-17, 28-31 and 38-44.  We have                                 
                jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a).                                                   
                       Representative independent claim 3 is reproduced below as best                              
                representative of the disclosed and claimed invention:                                             






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

Last modified: September 9, 2013