The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding precedent of the Board.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 KENNETH E. FLICK ____________ Appeal 2007-1535 Application 10/626,9691 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Decided: July 30, 2007 ____________ Before JAMES D. THOMAS, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JOHN A. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. 1 The present application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 10/264,917 filed Oct. 4, 2002, which, in turn, is a continuation-in- part of U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 09/583,333 filed on May 31, 2000, which, in turn, is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No. 6,275,147, which, in turn, is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 6,011,460, which, in turn, is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No. 5,719,551 (Specification ¶ 0001). Furthermore, Appeal No. 2002-1784 (non-precedential) was decided in connection with the parent 09/583,333 application noted above. Unless otherwise indicated, however, the issues decided in that case are not germane to the issues before us in the present appeal.Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013