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 GARY LEE KNIRK, PAUL JEFFREY TAUZER, and
12 LARRY B. HIGGINS
13 ____________________
14
15 Appeal 2006-3004
16 Application 10/796,708
17 Technology Center 3700
18 ____________________
19
20 Decided: July 26, 2007
21 ____________________
22
23 Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JENNIFER D. BAHR and ROBERT
24 E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.
25
26 CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
27
28
29 DECISION ON APPEAL
30
31 STATEMENT OF CASE
32 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection
33 of claims 1, 4 and 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
34 Appellants invented a bathroom support bar (Specification 1).
35 Claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
36 1. Bathroom support bar comprising:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013