1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding
2 precedent of the Board
3
4 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
5 ____________________
6
7 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
8 AND INTERFERENCES
9 ____________________
10
11 Ex parte LAWRENCE G. RODRIGUEZ and MICHAEL WINARDI
12 ____________________
13
14 Appeal 2006-2972
15 Application 09/906,227
16 Technology Center 3600
17 ____________________
18
19 Decided: August 31, 2007
20 ____________________
21
22 Before: TERRY J. OWENS, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, and LINDA E.
23 HORNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
24
25 CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
26
27
28 DECISION ON APPEAL
29
30 STATEMENT OF CASE
31 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection
32 of claims 1-5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
33 Appellants invented a dummy conversion bracket for a lockset. More
34 particularly, dummy handlesets and a bracket adapted to prevent movement
35 of the thumbpiece of the dummy handleset (Specification 1).
36 Claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013