Ex Parte Hall 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                              today was not written for publication and is not binding                                
                              precedent of the Board.                                                                 
                              UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                               
                                                  _______________                                                     
                                   BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                 
                                               AND INTERFERENCES                                                      
                                                  _______________                                                     
                                             Ex parte LINDSEY H. HALL                                                 
                                           and SCOTT R. SUMMERFELT                                                    
                                                  ______________                                                      
                                                Appeal No. 2006-0375                                                  
                                                Application 10/447,581                                                
                                                  _______________                                                     
                                                     ON BRIEF                                                         
                                                  _______________                                                     
             Before KIMLIN, PAK 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, and based           
             on our review, find that we cannot sustain the grounds of rejection advanced on appeal:  claims          
             1 through 6, 12 and 14 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Moise et al.                
             (Moise) (answer, pages 4-5);  claims 7 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over             
             Moise in view of Beintner et al. (answer, pages 5);  claims 8 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as         
             being unpatentable over Moise in view of Kato et al. (answer, pages 5-6); and claims 8 through           
             11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moise in view of Torek et al.1                    
                    We refer to the answer and to the brief2 for a complete exposition of the positions               

                                                                                                                     
             1  Claims 17 through 32 are also of record and have been withdrawn from consideration by the             
             examiner under 37 CFR § 1.142(b). Claims 1 through 32 are all of the claims in the application.          
             2  We consider the brief filed July 12, 2005.                                                            

                                                     - 1 -                                                            



Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007