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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte RICK A. RICHARDSON
and DANIEL A. BROCKMAN
______________
Appeal No. 2002-1489
Application 09/173,456
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, OWENS and TIMM, 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 based on our
review, find that we cannot sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of appealed claims 1
through 5, 24 through 29, 31 through 33, 35 through 37, 40 through 43, 45 and 48 as being
unpatentable over Gamblin in view of Ratzker et al. (Ratzker) and of appealed claims 1 through
7, 24 through 29, 31 through 33, 35 through 37, 40 through 43, 45 and 48 as being unpatentable
over Myers et al. (Myers) in view of Ratzker.1,2
1 These are all of the claims in the application. See the specification, pages 28 and 31-33 and the
amendment of January 19, 2001 (Paper No. 13)
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007