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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 23
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte ULRICH BEESE
______________
Appeal No. 2002-1409
Application 09/381,444
_______________
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 24 through 26,1
all of the claims in the application, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Model et
al. (Model), Solomon et al. (Solomon) and Dubin et al. (Dubin) in view of Khait and Hampton.2
In order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the examiner must show that some
objective teaching, suggestion or motivation in the applied prior art taken as a whole and/or
knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in this art would have led that person to
1 See the amendment of February 7, 2003 (Paper No. 10).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007