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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 42
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte ANDERS SODERGARD,
JOHAN-FREDRIK SELIN, MARIA NIEMI,
CARL-JOHAN JOHANSSON and KERSTIN MEINANDER
______________
Appeal No. 2000-1620
Application 08/507,326
_______________
HEARD: October 8, 2002
_______________
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 based on our
review, find that we cannot sustain either of the rejections of appealed claims 24 through 36,1 all
of the claims in the application, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicants regard as
the invention, and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sinclair et al. (Sinclair
‘158) in view of Sinclair ‘418 and ‘537.2
1 See the amendments of January 22, 1999 (Paper No. 27) and October 27, 1999 (Paper No. 32).
2 Answer, pages 3-5.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007