Ex Parte Luft - 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                   The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding                               
                                                precedent of the Board.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 HEINZ LUFT                                                        
                                                     ____________                                                          
                                                  Appeal 2007-2439                                                         
                                                Application 10/089,668                                                     
                                               Technology Center 3700                                                      
                                                     ____________                                                          
                                                Decided: July 25, 2007                                                     
                                                     ____________                                                          
                  Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and                                                         
                  LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                         
                  GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                     
                                              DECISION ON APPEAL                                                           
                         Appellant appeals the final rejection of claims 26-29 under 35 U.S.C.                             
                  � 134.  We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. � 6(b).                               
                         We AFFIRM.                                                                                        

                                                      INTRODUCTION                                                         
                         Appellant claims a fuel injector for injecting fuel in an internal                                
                  combustion engine (claim 26).  The fuel injector has an adjusting body (40)                              
                  placed in direct contact with a sleeve (24) so that a fuel amount flowing per                            




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

Last modified: September 9, 2013