Ex Parte Kumar 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                                     is not binding precedent of the Board.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 KIRAN KUMAR, ZHIHAI WANG,                                                
                                         and WILBUR G. CATABAY                                                     
                                               Appeal 2006-2499                                                    
                                            Application 10/268,735                                                 
                                            Technology Center 1700                                                 
                                         Decided:  September 25, 2007                                              
                Before CHUNG K. PAK, CHARLES F. WARREN, and                                                        
                THOMAS A. WALTZ,  Administrative Patent Judges.                                                    
                WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                

                                           DECISION ON APPEAL                                                      
                       This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134 from the                              
                Primary Examiner’s final rejection of claims 11 and 20, which are the only                         
                claims pending in this application.  We have jurisdiction pursuant to                              
                35 U.S.C.  6(b).                                                                                  
                       According to Appellants, the invention is directed to an integrated                         
                circuit having a conductive metal system made by a method for creating a                           

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013