The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 DAVID K. POULSEN,
SANJIV M. SHAH, PAUL M. PETERSEN,
GRANT E. HAAB, AND JAY P. HOEFLINGER
____________
Appeal 2007-1959
Application 10/039,789
Technology Center 2100
____________
Decided: September 11, 2007
____________
Before ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, MAHSHID D. SAADAT,
and ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10-15, 18, and 20-26, which are all of the claims pending in
this application, as claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 16, 17, and 19 have been canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013