1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written 2 for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board 3 4 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 5 ____________________ 6 7 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 8 AND INTERFERENCES 9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 BERNARDUS JOHANNES PRONK 12 ____________________ 13 14 Appeal 2007-1786 15 Application 10/121,3651 16 Technology Center 3700 17 ____________________ 18 19 Decided: June 22, 2007 20 ____________________ 21 22 Before: WILLIAM F. PATE, III, TERRY J. OWENS, and STUART S. 23 LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges. 24 25 LEVY, Administrative Patent Judge. 26 27 28 DECISION ON APPEAL 29 30 STATEMENT OF CASE 31 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection 32 of claims 1-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). 33 Appellant invented a medical imaging device, method, and computer 34 program for use in a safety critical environment. (Specification 1.) In 1 Application filed April 12, 2002. The real party in interest is Koniklijke Phillips Electronics N.V.Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013