Ex Parte KOLTHAMMER et al - Page 1






                                       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                                   today was not written for publication and is not binding                                           
                                   precedent of the Board.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. 30                            
                                   UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                          
                                                         _______________                                                              
                                        BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                            
                                                     AND INTERFERENCES                                                                
                                                         _______________                                                              
                                             Ex parte BRIAN W.S. KOLTHAMMER,                                                          
                                       ROBERT S. CARDWELL, DEEPAK R. PARIKH,                                                          
                                     MORRIS S. EDMONDSON and STANELY W. SMITH                                                         
                                                         ______________                                                               
                                                      Appeal No. 2000-1822                                                            
                                                      Application 08/679,538                                                          
                                                         _______________                                                              
                                                             ON BRIEF                                                                 
                                                         _______________                                                              
               Before WARREN, LIEBERMAN 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 reply brief,                       
               and based on our review, find that we cannot sustain the grounds of rejections of appealed claims                      
               1, 5, 7, 9 through 12, 14 through 16, 23 and 241 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable                        
               over Stehling et al. (Stehling)2 taken with Canich, Hopkins, further taken with Stevens et al.                         
                                                                                                                                     
               1  See the amendment of June 26, 1998 (Paper No. 15). Appellants cancelled claims 19 through                           
               22 and 17 in the amendments of February 24, 1999 (Paper No. 20) and of August 25, 1999                                 
               (Paper No. 23), respectively. Thus, claims 1, 5, 7, 9 through 12, 14 through 16, 23 and 24 are all                     
               of the claims in the application.                                                                                      
               2  Stehling is referred to in the answer as “WO ‘414.”                                                                 

                                                             - 1 -                                                                    



Page:  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007