Ex Parte Creger et al - Page 1



                        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                                    not binding precedent of the Board.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 TODD D. CREGER, JAVAD HOSSEINI,                                         
                                  and JAGANATHAN SARANGAPANI                                                 
                                               ____________                                                  
                                             Appeal 2007-1088                                                
                                          Application 10/006,959                                             
                                          Technology Center 2100                                             
                                               ____________                                                  
                                          Decided: July 31, 2007                                             
                                               ____________                                                  

                Before JAMES D. THOMAS, JOHN C. MARTIN,                                                      
                and JEAN R. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judges.                                            
                THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                         


                                         DECISION ON APPEAL                                                  
                      This appeal involves claims 1 through 12, constituting all claims                      
                pending in the application.  We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b)                    
                and 134(a).                                                                                  
                      As best representative of the disclosed and claimed invention,                         
                independent claim 7 is reproduced below:                                                     




Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013