The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JAY M. EASTMAN, WILLIAM J. FOX,
ROGER J. GREENWALD, KEVIN P. ROESSER,
and JAMES M. ZAVISLAN
____________
Appeal 2006-3381
Application 10/162,3171
Technology Center 2800
____________
Decided: March 23, 2007
____________
Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP,
and JAY P. LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judges.
LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 1 Application was filed on June 4, 2002. Appellant claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 120 of
application 09/502,252, filed February 17, 2000, now U.S. Patent No. 6411434 and the benefit under 35
U.S.C. § 119 of provisional patent application 60/120,534 filed February 17, 1999. The real party in
interest is Lucid, Inc. of Rochester, NY.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013