1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding
2 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 DIANE R. HAMMERSTAD
12 __________
13
14 Appeal 2007-2241
15 Application 09/768,990
16 Technology Center 3600
17 __________
18
19 Decided: August 15, 2007
20 __________
21
22 Before, WILLIAM F. PATE, III, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
23 LINDA E. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
24
25 LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
26
27 ORDER REMANDING TO THE EXAMINER
28
29 This appeal is from a decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-6
30 and 9-131 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2002) as obvious over Alberts (US
31 Patent No. 5,937,392) in view of Tso (US Patent No. 6,047,327) in view of
32 Batachia (US Patent Application Publication 2002/0082912). 35 U.S.C.
33 § 134 (2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
1 Claims 7, 8, 14-16 have been canceled.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013