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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 33
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte OLIVIER LEGENDRE
and CHRISTOPHER NEDEZ
______________
Appeal No. 2002-0214
Application 08/914,244
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, DELMENDO and POTEATE, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal, Opinion and Remand
This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves the following grounds of rejection: claims
1 through 3, 7 and 11 through 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Goodboy; claims 4 through 6, 8, 9 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goodboy in view of Dupin et al.; and claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodboy in view of Flytzani-Stephanopoulos et al.1, 2
With respect to the ground of rejection under § 102(b), we agree with appellants (brief,
1 These are all of the claims in the application. See, e.g., the amendments of October 10, 1996 in
parent application 08/501,872 (Paper No. 7) and of March 16, 1999 in the present application
(Paper No. 24).
2 Answer, pages 3-5.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007