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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte WARREN D. GROSSKLAUS JR.,
ROGER D. WUSTMAN, JOHN M. POWERS,
JEFFREY A. CONNER and JON C. SCHAEFFER
______________
Appeal No. 2000-0821
Application 08/886,504
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, WALTZ and KRATZ 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 rejection of appealed claims 11 and 13
through 17, 19 and 201 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ault et al. (Ault) in
view of McComas et al. (McComas), and the rejection of appealed claim 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ault in view of McComas, as applied to appealed claims 11
1 These are all of the claims in the application. See the amendments of January 13, 1999 (Paper
No. 7).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007