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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 30
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte BRIAN W.S. KOLTHAMMER,
ROBERT S. CARDWELL, DEEPAK R. PARIKH,
MORRIS S. EDMONDSON and STANELY W. SMITH
______________
Appeal No. 2000-1822
Application 08/679,538
_______________
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
1, 5, 7, 9 through 12, 14 through 16, 23 and 241 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Stehling et al. (Stehling)2 taken with Canich, Hopkins, further taken with Stevens et al.
1 See the amendment of June 26, 1998 (Paper No. 15). Appellants cancelled claims 19 through
22 and 17 in the amendments of February 24, 1999 (Paper No. 20) and of August 25, 1999
(Paper No. 23), respectively. Thus, claims 1, 5, 7, 9 through 12, 14 through 16, 23 and 24 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007