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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte DANIEL RALPH PETRAK
______________
Appeal No. 2000-1850
Application 09/098,822
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, JEFFREY T. SMITH and NAGUMO, 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 appellant, in the brief, and based on our
review, find that we cannot sustain the rejection of appealed claims 1 through 19,1 all of the
claims in the application, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Petrak et al. (Petrak)
in view of Moore et al. (Moore).2
It is well settled that “[t]he consistent criterion for determination of obviousness is
whether the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that [the claimed
process] should be carried out and would have a reasonable likelihood of success viewed in light
1 See the amendment of May 18, 1999 (Paper No. 4) and pages 16 through 18 of the
specification.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007