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was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of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. 33
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte JEFFREY D. MONTGOMERY
______________
Appeal No. 1998-1063
Application 08/715,239
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before PAK, WARREN and DELMENDO, 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 appellant, in the brief, and based on our review, find
that we cannot sustain either of the rejections of appealed claims 12 through 15 and 18 through 31,1 all
of the claims in the application, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description requirement,
and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hilgers.2 For the reasons pointed out by
appellant in the brief and reply brief, the examiner has failed to make out a prima facie case with
respect to both grounds of rejection.
1 See, e.g., the amendments of February 27, 1997 (Paper No. 20).
2 Answer, pages 3-5.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007