Ex Parte Williams 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                                    is not binding precedent of the Board.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 L. DAVID WILLIAMS,                                               
                              MICHAEL S. HERSHFIELD, SUSAN J. KELLY,                                             
                             MARK G. P. SAIFER, and MERRY R. SHERMAN                                             
                                              Appeal 2007-1159                                                   
                                            Application 09/839,946                                               
                                           Technology Center 1600                                                
                                            Decided: July 18, 2007                                               

                Before ERIC GRIMES, LORA M. GREEN, and NANCY J. LINCK,                                           
                Administrative Patent Judges.                                                                    
                GREEN, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                              

                                           DECISION ON APPEAL                                                    
                       This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134 from the                               
                Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 50-53.1  We have jurisdiction under 35                      
                1 Claims 54-59 are also pending, and have been rejected for obviousness-                         
                type double-patenting over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 6,783,965, but                         
                that rejection has not been appealed (Br. 5).                                                    

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013