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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte DEREK W. HANSON
______________
Appeal No. 2003-1516
Application 09/569,700
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, LIEBERMAN and KRATZ, 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 reply brief, and
based on our review, find that we cannot sustain the grounds of rejections advanced on appeal:
claims 1 through 5, 8, 11 through 14 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
unpatentable over Tsai et al. (Tsai); and claims 6, 7, 9, 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Tsai.1,2 We refer to the examiner’s answer and to appellant’s
brief and reply brief for a complete exposition of the opposing views of the parties.
1 Claims 1 through 14, 19 and 20 are all of the claims in the application. See the appendix to the
brief.
2 Answer, pages 3-5. The examiner withdrew the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first and second paragraphs, of record in the final rejection (answer, page 5).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007