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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte GONZALO MARTINEZ,
CATHERINE TAYLOR, KEN KEENEY
and MARKUS HALLER
______________
Appeal No. 2002-2249
Application 09/340,441
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, DELMENDO and MOORE, 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 on this record we cannot sustain grounds of rejections advanced on appeal:
appealed claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 12 through 14, 17, 18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Loh et al. (Loh); appealed claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stewart et al (Stewart); and appealed claims 5, 7, 11 and 19
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ovshinsky et al. (Ovshinsky)
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007