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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte JAMES E. MISTOPOULOS
and THOMAS L. GUSTAFSON
______________
Appeal No. 2002-1847
Application 09/478,393
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, OWENS and MOORE, 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 rejection of appealed claims 29 through
31 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gustafson et al. ‘345 or ‘427 in
view of Gross, and of appealed claims 32, 33 and 35 through 43 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gustafson et al. ‘345 or ‘427.2
1 See the amendment of September 14, 2000 (Paper No. 6). Claims 15 through 28 are also of
record and have been withdrawn from consideration by the examiner under 37 CFR § 1.142(b).
2 Answer, pages 3-8.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007