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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte ARLEN L. ROESNER
and DOUGLAS A. FLEECS
______________
Appeal No. 2003-1412
Application 10/017,543
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, KRATZ and MOORE 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 any of the grounds of the rejections
advanced by the examiner on appeal: claims 1 through 4, 6 through 9, 22 through 25 and
27 through 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Green et al. (Green);
claims 5 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Green;
claims 10, 11, 13 through 15 and 17 through 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Green in view of Tzeng et al. (Tzeng); claim 16 stands rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Green in view of Tzeng; and claim 12 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Green in view of Tzeng, as applied
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007