Ex Parte Spencer et al - Page 1

                      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                                is not binding precedent of the Board.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 MICHAEL T. SPENCER,                                             
            THOMAS R. ADAMS, RICHARD J. DAINES, WILLIAM J. GORDON-KAMM,                                      
                ALBERT P. KAUSCH, PEGGY G. LEMAUX, CATHERINE J. MACKEY,                                      
                             MARY L. MANGANO, and THOMAS B. RICE                                             
                                           Appeal No. 2007-0082                                              
                                        Application No. 10/171,498                                           
                                          Technology Center 1600                                             
                                       Decided: September 25, 2007                                           
            Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DONALD E. ADAMS, and DEMETRA J. MILLS,                                  
            Administrative Patent Judges.                                                                    
            MILLS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                              

                                         DECISION ON APPEAL                                                  
                   The Appellant appeals the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims directed to                
            seed of a fertile, transgenic maize plant as obvious over the prior art.  We have                
            jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.  6(b) (2006).                                                      

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013