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today is not binding precedent of the Board.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Furthermore, Appeal No. 2002-1784 (non-precedential) was decided in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