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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 EDWARD LEE ARRINGTON,
JOHN CHRISTOPHER CAMP, ROBERT JEFFREY DAY,
EDMOND OTTO FEY, CURTIS MICHAEL GUNTHER
and THOMAS RICHARD MILLER
______________
Appeal No. 2000-1005
Application 08/813,765
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, KRATZ 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 the rejection of appealed claims 5, 9 through 11, 13 and 16
through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Babu et al. (Babu) in view of
Karas et al. (Karas); of appealed claims 6 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Babu in view of Karas further in view of Ott et al. (Ott); and of appealed claims 14 and 15
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007