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was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of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. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte BARRY A. CULLEN
and BRIAN A. PARKER
______________
Appeal No. 1999-1244
Application 08/453,003
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KIMLIN, GARRIS 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, including the
opposing views of the examiner, in the answer, and appellants, in the brief and reply brief, and based on
our review, find that we cannot sustain the rejections of appealed claims 14, 17 and 18,1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hershmann.2
It is well settled that “[t]he consistent criterion for determination of obviousness is whether the
prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that [the claimed process] should be
1 Claims 1 through 13, 15, 16 and 19 through 22 are also of record and stand allowed.
2 Answer, pages 3-6.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007