1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered
2 today is not binding precedent of the Board
3
4
5
6 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
7 ____________________
8
9 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
10 AND INTERFERENCES
11 ____________________
12
13 Ex parte LEONARD R. KILBY, JOHN M. LUCIDO, JOHN D.
14 LEATHERBEE, and JAMES J. DIVER
15 ____________________
16
17 Appeal 2007-1581
18 Application 10/670113
19 Technology Center 3700
20 ____________________
21
22 Decided: September 25, 2007
23 ____________________
24
25 Before: WILLIAM F. PATE, III, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, and DAVID
26 B. WALKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
27
28 CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
29
30
31 DECISION ON APPEAL
32
33 STATEMENT OF CASE
34 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection
35 of claims 63 and 64. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
36 This case was heard by this panel of the Board on September 13, 2007.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013