1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered
2 today is not binding precedent of the Board.
3
4
5 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
6 _____________
7
8 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
9 AND INTERFERENCES
10 _____________
11
12 Ex parte MYRON J. MAURER, GAVIN D. VOGEL, EUGENIO TOCCALINO,
13 LAXMAN P. KATAKKAR, PRASHANT S. SHEMBEKAR,
14 and SRINIVASAN VELUSAMY
15 _____________
16
17 Appeal No. 2007-0269
18 Application No. 10/799,095
19 Technology Center 3600
20 ______________
21
22 Decided: September 27, 2007
23 _______________
24
24 Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and DAVID B.
25
25 WALKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
26
27
27 PATE, III, Administrative Patent Judge.
28
29
30
31 DECISION ON APPEAL
32
33 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
34
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013