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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte ROBERT S. CARDWELL,
BRIAN W.S. KOLTHAMMER and DEEPAK R. PARIKH
______________
Appeal No. 2000-1551
Application 08/858,664
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, LIEBERMAN 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 grounds of rejections of appealed claims
16 through 201 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Stehling et al. (Stehling)2 or Ewen et al. (Ewen), or the combined
teachings of these references; and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stehling
1 See the amendment of August 18, 1999 (Paper No. 11) in which claims 16 through 18, and
thus also claims 19 and 20, were amended and claims 1 through 15 and 21 through 24 were
canceled. Thus, claims 16 through 20 are all of the claims in the application.
2 Stehling is referred to in the answer as “WO ‘414.”
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007