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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board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. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte CHRISTIAN STRAHM
and
THOMAS GERBIG
______________
Appeal No. 2000-1060
Application No. 09/030,378
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before OWENS, KRATZ, and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent
Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
The appellants request reconsideration of our October 19,
2001 decision wherein we affirmed the rejection of claims 6-8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the admitted prior art in view of
Aindow.
It remains undisputed that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to apply Aindow’s powder removal air
jet (col. 7, lines 35-39) to the admitted prior art paste-point
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007