The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 RUSSELL A. NEEFE
Appeal 2007-1366
Application 90/005,090
Technology Center 1700
____________
Decided: July 31, 2007
____________
Before RICHARD E. SCHAFER, TEDDY S. GRON and
ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHAFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1 Patentee appeals from the final rejection of Claim 1 in the
2 reexamination of Patent 4,306,042. 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 306. We have
3 jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
4 An examiner rejected Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
5 unpatentable over the combined teachings of Quaal,1 Gaylord2 and Tanaka.3
1 US Patent 3,377,371.
2 US Patent 4,120,570.
3 US Patent 4,235,985.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013