Ex Parte Begemann et al - Page 1






                                       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                                  today was not written for publication and is not binding                                           
                                  precedent of the Board.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. 17                            
                                  UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                          
                                                        _______________                                                              
                                        BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                           
                                                    AND INTERFERENCES                                                                
                                                        _______________                                                              
                                                 Ex parte ULRICH BEGEMANN                                                            
                                                    and ALFRED SCHAULZ                                                               
                                                         ______________                                                              
                                                      Appeal No. 2005-0659                                                           
                                                      Application 09/799,134                                                         
                                                        _______________                                                              
                                                            ON BRIEF                                                                 
                                                        _______________                                                              
               Before KIMLIN, GARRIS and WARREN, 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 grounds of rejections advanced on                            
               appeal:                                                                                                               
               claims 1, 2, 5 through 9, 11, 12, 15 through 17, 20, 21, 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                     
               § 102(e) as anticipated by Shakespeare et al. (Shakespeare) (answer, pages 4-8);                                      
               claims 3, 4, 10, 13, 14, 18 and 27 through 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                        
               unpatentable over Shakespeare in view of Wood et al. (Wood) (answer, pages 8-10);                                     
               claims 22 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over                                   
               Shakespeare in view of Gorinevsky et al. (Gorinevsky) (answer, page 10);                                              
               claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shakespeare in                           
               view of Kuni  (answer, page 11); and                                                                                  

                                                            - 1 -                                                                    



Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007