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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 55
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte DEEPAK R. PARIKH,
ROBERT S. CARDWELL and BRIAN W.S. KOLTHAMMER
______________
Appeal No. 2001-0172
Application 08/932,771
_______________
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 brief1 and reply brief,
and based on our review, find that we cannot sustain the grounds of rejections of appealed claims
1, 3, 4, 6 through 14, 21 through 24, 30 through 332 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stehling et al. (Stehling)3 taken with Stevens et al. (Stevens ‘815),4 LaPointe et
al. (LaPointe), and Stevens et al. (Stevens ‘802) as further evidenced by the teachings of
1 We have considered the brief filed November 11, 1999 (Paper No. 51).
2 These are all of the claims in the application. See the amendments of December 23, 1998
(Paper No. 39) June 7, 1999 (Paper No. 47).
3 Stehling is referred to in the answer as “WO ‘414.”
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007