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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte DAVID A. LA POINT
______________
Appeal No. 2003-1830
Application 09/534,101
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, LIEBERMAN and JEFFREY T. SMITH, 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 ground of rejections of appealed claims 1
through 8, 10 through 13 and 19,1 all of the claims in the application, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kidai et al. (Kidai) in view of Medford et al. (Medford).2
It is well settled that in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness under
§ 103(a), the examiner must show that some objective teaching, suggestion or motivation in the
applied prior art taken as a whole and/or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in
1 See the appendix to the brief.
2 Answer, pages 2-4.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007