1 The opinion in support of the decision is not binding precedent of the Board
2
3 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
4 ____________________
5
6 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
7 AND INTERFERENCES
8 ____________________
9
10 Ex parte ARIS MARDDIROSSIAN
11 ____________________
12
13 Appeal 2007-0370
14 Application 09/951,560
15 Technology Center 2632
16 ____________________
17
18 Decided: September 24, 2007
19 ____________________
20
21 Before: RICHARD TORCZON, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and JAMES T.
22 MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
23
24 PER CURIAM
25
26 DECISION ON APPEAL
27
28 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
29 The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final
30 rejection of claims 1-18 of his reissue application 09/951,560 of Patent
31 5,952,941. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
32 The Appellant discloses as his invention a satellite-based system for
33 monitoring and detecting traffic violations. (Specification 1:50-52).
34 The broadest independent claim under appeal reads as follows:
35 13. A method of monitoring traffic and issuing tickets in
36 response to traffic law infractions, the method comprising:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013