Ex Parte Jurgensen et al - Page 1

                        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                                     not binding precedent of the Board.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 HOLGER JURGENSEN,                                               
                                      GERHARD KARL STRAUCH                                                    
                                      AND JOHANNES KAPPELER                                                   
                                             Appeal 2007-2095                                                 
                                           Application 10/378,493                                             
                                          Technology Center 1700                                              
                                           Decided: June 26, 2007                                             
                Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHUNG K. PAK, and THOMAS A.                                          
                WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                          
                WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                           

                                         DECISION ON APPEAL                                                   
                      This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134 from the                          
                Primary Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-3 and 12.  Claims 4-11 are                     
                the only other claims pending in this application, and the Examiner has                       
                indicated that claim 11 is allowed while claims 4-10 are objected to as                       

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013