The opinion is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte Samuel R. Alexander
____________
Appeal 2007-2097
Application 10/746,6441
Technology Center 3600
____________
Decided: August 27, 2007
____________
Before RICHARD E. SCHAFER, SALLY G. LANE, AND
MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIERNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a 35 U.S.C. § 134 appeal in the above-referenced case. 2
Specifically, the Examiner has rejected all pending claims, claims 1-7,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as having been obvious. The Applicant
(“Alexander”) seeks review. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 The application published as 20050147472 on July 7, 2005.
2 The real party in interest is Tronox LLC (“Tronox”). (Appeal Br. at
1).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013