The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________
Ex parte: BARRY M. TYDINGS
____________________
Appeal 2007-0393
Reexam Application 90/006,786
Patent 6,497,843
Technology Center 3991
____________________
Decided: May 25, 2007
____________________
Before RICHARD E. SCHAFER, TEDDY S. GRON and
ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHAFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Statement of the Case
2 Patentee appeals from the final rejection of Claims 1-4 and 6-12 in the
3 reexamination of Patent 6,497,843. 35 U.S.C. § 134(b) (2002). Patentee
4 timely appealed on July 1, 2005. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
5 (2002).
6 A Primary Examiner rejected all claims on the basis of obviousness-
7 type double patenting of the subject matter of Claims 4 and 6 of U.S. Patent
8 6,379,620. We affirm the rejection.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013