1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
2 not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
3
4
5 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
6 _____________
7
8 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
9 AND INTERFERENCES
10 _____________
11
12 Ex parte MATHIAS BERTL, MARC PEUKER, and GABRIELE HAGER
13 _____________
14
15 Appeal No. 2007-2072
16 Application No. 10/220,606
17 Technology Center 3700
18 ______________
19
20 Decided: August 3, 2007
21 _______________
22
22 Before TERRY J. OWENS, STUART S. LEVY, and LINDA E. HORNER,
23
23 Administrative Patent Judges.
24
25
25 OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
26
27
28
29 DECISION ON APPEAL
30 The Appellants appeal from a rejection of claims 15-21 and 23-39, which are
31 all of the pending claims.
32 THE INVENTION
33 The Appellants claim a device, and disclose that the device is for storing and
34 dispensing a substance such as a dental material (Spec. 1:4-5). The Appellants also
35 claim methods for making and using the device. Claim 15 is illustrative:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013