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was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of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. 32
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte JEAN M. FRECHET
CRAIG J. HAWKER and KATHRYN UHRICH
______________
Appeal No. 1997-3621
Application 08/094,392
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KIMLIN, WARREN and OWENS, 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 view of the examiner, in the answer, and appellants, in the brief, and based on our review, find
that we cannot sustain the rejection of appealed claims 1 through 28, all of the claims in the application,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Kricheldorf et al. (Kricheldorf).1 Indeed, the examiner has failed to make out a prima
facie case of anticipation, see, e.g., In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 707-08, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657
1 Answer, pages 3-8.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007