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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte BRIAN S. MUEHL
___________
Appeal No. 2001-2011
Application No. 08/402,413
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before WINTERS, WILLIAM F. SMITH and SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 3, the only claims remaining in the application.
We refer to Appendix A, which accompanied appellant’s brief, for the claims on
appeal (as amended by the amendment after final filed December 17, 1996).
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Descamps et al. (Descamps ‘707) 3,920,707 Nov. 18, 1975
Descamps et al. (Descamps ‘204) 4,007,204 Feb. 8, 1977
Pestellini et al. (Pestellini) 4,485,112 Nov. 27, 1984
Kennedy et al. (Kennedy) WO 89/02893 Apr. 6, 1989
All of the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Kennedy, Descamps ‘707, Descamps ‘204 and Pestellini.1
DISCUSSION
1 The examiner has withdrawn two previous rejections of the claims under 35
U.S.C. § 112 and the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (Answer, page 7).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007