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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte ALLEN I. FEINSTEIN,
RUTH ANN DOYLE and CALVIN T. CHEW
______________
Appeal No. 2000-0674
Application 08/867,511
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, KRATZ and TIMM, 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 2, 4
through 7, 19 through 30 and 39 through 41,1 all of the claims in the application, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over LaPierre et al. (LaPierre) taken in view of Reichmann,2
In order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the examiner must show that some
objective teaching, suggestion or motivation in the applied prior art taken as a whole and/or
knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in this art would have led that person to
1 See specification, pages 19-24, and the amendments of March 8, 1999 (Paper No. 9).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007