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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte THOMAS L. GUSTAFSON
and RICHARD MENTAL
______________
Appeal No. 2003-0001
Application 09/360,573
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, OWENS 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 reply brief,
and based on our review, find that we cannot sustain the rejection of appealed claims 25 through
34, 1 all of the claims in the application, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Gustafson et al. (Gustafson) ‘345 or ‘4272 in view of either Meggs et al. (Meggs) or Gross.3
In order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the examiner must show that
1 See specification, pages 17-19.
2 We refer to the Gustafson references collectively as Gustafson.
3 Answer, pages 4-6. The rejection of the appealed claims under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness type double patenting has been withdrawn by the examiner (answer, page 4).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007