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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 GEORGE T. BAYER
and KIM A. WYNNS
______________
Appeal No. 1999-0764
Application 08/745,199
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, KRATZ and JEFFREY T. SMITH, 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 1 through 4,
6, 7, 9 through 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krutenat in view
of Davis ‘501, and the rejection of appealed claims 5, 9 and 131 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Krutenat in view of Davis ‘501 as applied to claims 1 through 4, 6, 7, 9
1 Claims 1 through 7 and 9 through 14 are all of the claims in the application (specification,
pages 9-11).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007