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today is not binding precedent of the Board.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 DANIEL BARBER, JAMES KING, STERETT ROBERTSON,
SCOTT RAY, MALCOLM WARREN, ANTON ARNOLDY,
MICK A. TROMPEN, STANLEY M. GORGACZ, and DENNIS WUJEK
____________
Appeal No. 2007-0205
Application No. 09/812,302
Technology Center 2600
____________
Decided: August 30, 2007
____________
Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
JEAN R. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-10, 12, 13, 16-20, 22-26, 29-31, 33, 34, 43-47,
49-53, 55-60, 62, 63, 66-69, and 71-81. Claims 36-42 are allowed while
claims 11, 14, 15, 21, 27, 28, 32, 35, 48, 54, 61, 64, 65, and 70 have been
objected to, but otherwise allowable if rewritten in independent form to include
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013