1
2 The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
3 for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
4
5
6 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
7 __________
8
9 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND
10 INTERFERENCES
11 __________
12
13 Ex parte NATHAN B. EMERY, FRANKLIN S. LOVE III,
14 MATHIAS B. RICHARDSON, JOSEPH E. RUMLER and
15 KAREN H. STAVRAKAS
16 __________
17
18 Appeal No. 2007-0412
19 Application No. 10/195,6091
20 Technology Center 1700
21 __________
22
23 Decided:
24 __________
25
26 Before McKELVEY, Senior Administrative Patent Judge, and LORIN and
27 MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
28
29 LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
30
31
32 DECISION ON APPEAL
33
34
35 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
36
37 The appeal is from a decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 2, 3, 8-10,
38 15-17, 22-24 and 29 over the prior art. 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002). We have
39 jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (b) (2002).
1 Appellants claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 120 of application 09/344,596,
filed 25 June 1999, now U.S. Patent No. 6,546,605. The real party in interest is
Milliken & Company.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013