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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 50
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte RICHARD LEVY
______________
Appeal No. 2000-2192
Application 08/943,123
_______________
HEARD: July 15, 2003
_______________
Before PAK, 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 appellant, in the brief and reply brief, and
based on our review, find that we cannot sustain the first three grounds of rejection advanced on
appeal: claims 72 through 86 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing
to set forth the subject matter which appellant regards as the invention; claims 79 through 81
stand rejected 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; and claims 72 through 86 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007