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is not binding precedent of the Board.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 DAVID W. CANNELL, HITENDRA MATHUR,
and NGHI VAN NGUYEN
__________
Appeal 2006-3047
Application 09/820,934
Technology Center 1600
__________
DECIDED: August 20, 2007
__________
Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and NANCY J. LINCK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-9, 13-19, 33-42, and 56-59.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.
1 The rejection of claims 29-32 and 43-55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) has been
withdrawn, and the claims are merely objected to (Answer 2). The rejection
of claims 1-9, 13-19, and 29-59 on the grounds of obviousness-type double
patenting has also been withdrawn (id.).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013