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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 MADHAV DATTA,
PETER A. GRUBER, JUDITH M. RUBINO,
CARLOS J. SAMBUCETTI and GEORGE F. WALKER
______________
Appeal No. 2003-1331
Application 09/301,889
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, LIEBERMAN and PAWLIKOWSKI, 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 grounds of rejections advanced on appeal: claims 1 and
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Millican et al.
(Millican) and Lin et al. (Lin); claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Millican and Lin, as applied to appealed claims 1 and 23, and further in
combination with Mis et al.; and claims 8 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007