Appeal No. 2003-0190
Application No. 08/515,964
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs2 and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the Examiner, and the evidence relied
upon by the Examiner as support for the rejections. We have,
likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Briefs along
with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer. We
will reverse all of the Examiner’s rejections before us on
appeal.
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) based on the asserted reasoning that
Appellants did not invent the claimed subject matter. According
to 35 U.S.C. § 102(f), a person shall be entitled to a patent
unless he did not invent the subject matter sought to be
patented. The Examiner relies (Answer, page 5) upon various
2 The Appeal Brief was filed May 6, 2002 (Paper No. 25). In response to
the Examiner’s Answer dated July 22, 2002 (Paper No. 26), a Reply Brief was
filed August 2, 2002 (Paper No. 27), which was acknowledged and entered by the
Examiner as indicated in the communication dated August 27, 2002 (Paper No.
29).
-3–3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007