The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte MICHAEL KWAN
and ERIC LIU
______________
Appeal No. 2005-1668
Application 09/920,891
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, WALTZ and DELMENDO, 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 supplemental answer mailed February 3, 2005, and
appellants, in the brief, the reply brief and the supplemental reply brief filed March 25, 2005,1
and based on our review, find that we cannot sustain the ground of rejection advanced in the
supplemental answer: appealed claims 17 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hong et al. (Hong) in view of Papasouliotis et al. (Papasouliotis) as evidenced
1 The supplemental answer was filed in response to our remand entered January 19, 2005, in
Appeal No. 2005-0003 in this application, and appellant filed the supplemental reply brief in
response.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007