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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 31
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte EMMANUEL LEGRAND
______________
Appeal No. 2002-0794
Application 09/037,584
_______________
HEARD: March 20, 2003
_______________
Before WARREN, WALTZ and DELMENDO, 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 reply brief, and
based on our review, find that we cannot sustain the rejection of appealed claims 11 through 13
and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Boland in view of Young, Sr., et al.
(Young), and the rejection of appealed claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Boland in view of Young as applied to appealed claims 11 through 13 and 15 above, and
further in view of Harbeke et al. (Harbeke). 1,2
1 Appealed claims 11 through 15 are all of the claims in the application. See the amendment of
April 10, 2000 (Paper No. 11) and of November 29, 2002 (Paper No. 17).
2 Answer, pages 4-5.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007