1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
2 is not binding precedent of the Board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 WESLEY M. MAYS
12 ____________________
13
14 Appeal 2007-2818
15 Application 10/620,731
16 Technology Center 3600
17 ____________________
18
19 Decided: September 26, 2007
20 ____________________
21
22 Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN and
23 LINDA E. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
24
25 CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
26
27
28 DECISION ON APPEAL
29
30 STATEMENT OF CASE
31 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection
32 of claims 44 and 48 to 56. Claims 1 to 43 and 45 have been cancelled.
33 Claims 46 and 47 have been allowed. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
34 § 6(b) (2002).
35 Appellant’s invention is directed to an automatic barrier operator
36 system (Specification 1).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013