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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte GAUTAM P. SHAH
______________
Appeal No. 1999-09811
Application 08/787,895
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, OWENS and JEFFREY T. SMITH, 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 reply brief, and
based on our review, find that we cannot sustain grounds of rejection of appealed claims 14 and
20,2 all of the claims in the application, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
applicant regards as the invention, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller,
1 This appeal is related to Appeal 1999-2661 in application 08/430,632, which we decide
concurrently herewith.
2 See the amendment of March 18, 1996 in patent application 08/433,279 (Paper No. 18) and the
amendment of January 23, 1997 in the present application (Paper No. 14). We observe that
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007