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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 26
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte LAWRENCE D. LAWRENCE
and RICHARD H. GRANHOLM
______________
Appeal No. 2003-1398
Application 09/472,800
_______________
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 appellants, in the brief and reply brief,
and based on our review, find that we cannot sustain the rejections of appealed claims 1 and 3
through 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hajto et al. (Hajto) in view of
Tucker et al. (Tucker), Cescon et al. (Cescon) and Richard et al. (Richard).2 We consider
appellants’ statement in the brief that “claim 7 may be cancelled and need not be considered in
this appeal” (page 1) to constitute withdrawal of the appeal with respect to this claim, which is
the only other pending claim, and thus we dismiss the appeal with respect to claim 7.
1 See the appendix to the brief.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007