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was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of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. 30
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte DRAHOSLAV LIM,
DAVID A. GOUGH and ANDREA M. ROURKE
______________
Appeal No. 1998-3267
Application 08/688,242
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, TIMM 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 answer, and appellants, in the brief, and based on our review,
find that we cannot sustain either of the rejections of appealed claims 1, 3 through 6, 22 and 25 through
28,1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
1 Claims 1 through 6 and 21 through 28 were finally rejected in the Office action of March 21, 1997
(Paper No. 22). Subsequent thereto, appellants canceled claims 21, 23 and 24 and submitted new
claims 29 through 31 in the amendment of September 25, 1997 (Paper No. 24) and the examiner
allowed claims 29 through 31 upon entering the amendment with the filing of an appeal in the advisory
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007