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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 CLAUDE GEORGET
______________
Appeal No. 2005-2681
Application 10/156,328
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, OWENS and KRATZ, 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, and based
on our review, find that we cannot sustain the grounds of rejection advanced on appeal: appealed
claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Naaktgeboren et al.
(Naaktgeboren); and appealed claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Naaktgeboren in view of Glass et al. (Glass).1,2 Answer, pages 3-5.
We refer to the answer and to the brief for a complete exposition of the positions
advanced by the examiner and appellant.
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether Naaktgeboren discloses to one skilled in
1 Claims 1, 2 and 7 are all of the claims in the application. See the appendix to the brief.
2 The examiner does not state which prior Office action contains the grounds of rejection. We
find the grounds of rejection set forth in the final action mailed June 15, 2004.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007