Ex Parte Domijan - Page 1





        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        2                       today is not binding precedent of the Board.                                 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 JOSEPH J. DOMIJAN                                             
       13                                     _____________                                                  
       14                                                                                                    
       15                                  Appeal No. 2007-0513                                              
       16                               Application No. 10/274,797                                           
       17                                 Technology Center 3700                                             
       18                                    ______________                                                  
       19                                                                                                    
       20                                Decided: August 15, 2007                                            
       21                                   _______________                                                  
       22                                                                                                    
       22 Before TERRY J. OWENS, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, and DAVID B.                                           
       23                                                                                                    
       23 WALKER, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                              
       24                                                                                                    
       25                                                                                                    
       25 OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                
       26                                                                                                    
       27                                                                                                    
       28                                                                                                    
       29                                DECISION ON APPEAL                                                  
       30                                                                                                    
       31          The Appellant appeals from a rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-14 and 17-21,                 
       32   which are all of the pending claims.                                                             
       33                                                                                                    
       34                                   THE INVENTION                                                    
       35          The Appellant claims an apparatus for double seaming an end unit to a can                 
       36   body.  Claim 1 is illustrative:                                                                  




Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013