The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte JOSEPH A. GULOTTA
and LARRY J. SHELESTAK
______________
Appeal No. 2000-0099
Application 08/742,426
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before STONER, Chief Administrative Patent Judge, and WARREN and PAWLIKOWSKI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
We have carefully considered the record in this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134, including
the opposing views of the examiner, in the answer, and appellants, in the brief, and based on our
review, find that we cannot sustain the rejection of appealed claims 18 through 26, 28, 30 and
32,1 all of the claims in the application, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon a public use or sale
of the invention based upon evidence in the specification.2 We must agree with appellants that
the examiner has failed to establish that an embodiment of the claimed invention encompassed
1 See the amendments of October 30, 1996 (Paper No. 3) and January 9, 1998 (Paper No. 10).
2 Answer, page 3.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007