The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte LALITHA SURYANARAYANA, MICHAEL F. GRANNAN, and
DAVID PATRON
__________
Appeal 2007-0647
Application 10/421,366
Technology Center 2600
__________
Decided: October 19, 2007
_________
Before ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9, 11-18, and 20-53.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The Examiner has indicated that claims 10 and 19 would be allowable if
rewritten in independent form (see Answer 11).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013