1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
2 is not binding precedent of the Board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 STANLEY R. KELLENBERGER, VINCENT B. NEWBILL,
12 DANIEL T. QUILLIN, WENDY L. VAN DYKE,
13 JAMES HONGXUE WANG and JENNIFER L. MARVIN
14 ____________________
15
16 Appeal 2006-3388
17 Application 10/246,800
18 Technology Center 3700
19 ____________________
20
21 Decided: September 27, 2007
22 ____________________
23
24 Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JENNIFER D. BAHR and
25 LINDA E. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
26
27 CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
28
29
30 DECISION ON APPEAL
31
32 STATEMENT OF CASE
33 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection
34 of claims 1 to 45 and 47 to 71. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
35 (2002).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013