1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
2 for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board
3
4 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
5 ____________________
6
7 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
8 AND INTERFERENCES
9 ____________________
10
11 Ex parte REMY BADIN and LUCIEN FOSSE
12 ____________________
13
14 Appeal 2007-1665
15 Application 09/534,973
16 Technology Center 3700
17 ____________________
18
19 Decided: September 25, 2007
20 ____________________
21
22 Before: WILLIAM F. PATE, III, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, and
23 DAVID B. WALKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
24
25 CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
26
27
28 DECISION ON APPEAL
29
30 STATEMENT OF CASE
31 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection
32 of claims 1-5 and 16-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
33 (2002). The case came before us for hearing on September 13, 2007.
34 Appellants invented a hollow glass product which includes a collar
35 that extends beyond the cross section of the main body of the product
36 (Specification 1; claim 1; Figure 2).
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013