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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte LORENZO SCALIA
and BARRY DONALD SEWING
______________
Appeal No. 2000-1176
Application 08/928,902
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, OWENS and WALTZ, 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 9, 10, 15
and 16, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as being clearly anticipated by Suzuki et al. (Suzuki); of
appealed claims 9 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suzuki; and
of appealed claims 17 through 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Elderbaum in view of Carlson.1,2
1 These are all of the claims in the application. See the amendment of December 8, 1998 (Paper
No. 4).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007