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was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of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. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte RAGNAR R. AVERY, JEFFREY S. BAKER,
GERALD A. BEELER, MICHAEL H. BROWN
and KEVIN J. OKESON
______________
Appeal No. 1998-1159
Application 08/642,019
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KIMLIN, 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 view of the examiner, in the answer, and appellants, in the brief, and based on our review, find
that we cannot sustain the ground of rejection of appealed claims 1 and 4 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which applicants regard as the invention, or the ground of rejection of appealed claims 1
and 4 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Groenhof in view of Keil,
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007