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was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of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. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte SHELBY F. THAMES
and ZHIGIANG A. HE
______________
Appeal No. 1998-1304
Application 08/444,534
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before GARRIS, WARREN and KRATZ, 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 either of the rejections of appealed claims 1 and 12-161 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as, respectively, anticipated by and obvious over Garratt et al.
1 The grounds of rejection include appealed claims 15 and 16. See the examiner’s supplemental answer
of March 29, 2001 (Paper No. 23) in response to the remand by the board of January 9, 2001 (Paper
No. 22). The appealed claims are set forth in the specification (pages 17 and 19). The examiner
withdrew the rejection of appealed claim 2, stating that it would be allowed if submitted in independent
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007