1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
2 for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 VICTOR ERUHIMOV
13 ____________
14
15 Appeal 2007-0471
16 Application 10/423,307
17 Technology Center 2100
18 ____________
19
20 Decided: May 15, 2007
21 ____________
22
23
24 Before JAMES D. THOMAS, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, and
25 JEAN R. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judges.
26
27 MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
28 DECISION ON APPEAL
29 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
30 claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1-30 are
31 rejected. However, the rejections of claims 1-4, 7, 10-17, 20-27, and 30, are
32 not argued and we affirm these rejections as a matter of form.1
1 Contrary to Appellant’s statement (Reply Br. 1), claims 1-30 are the
subject of this appeal. See the Notice of Appeal filed by Appellant on April
28, 2006. Appellant’s statement (Br. 5) does not change this fact.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013