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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 Albino Pidutti
______________
Appeal No. 2003-1203
Application 09/594,831
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, MOORE and POTEATE, 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 based on our
review, find that we cannot sustain the rejection of appealed claims 11 through 13 and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Koike (answer, page 3), and of appealed claims 14
through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koike as applied to claims
11 through 13 and 31, further in view of Monk et al. (Monk) (answer, pages 4-5).1
It is well settled that in making out a prima facie case of anticipation under § 102, each
and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as required by the claims, must be found in
1 Claims 32 through 37 are also of record, claims 33 through 37 allowed by the examiner and
claim 32 objected to by the examiner as dependent on a rejected base claim (answer, pages 5-6).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007