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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 32
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte WILLIAM ROBERT LANIGAN,
RICHARD J. LEGARE and SHIV SIBAL
______________
Appeal No. 2003-2032
Application 09/116,371
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, JEFFREY T. SMITH 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 appellants, in the brief1 and reply brief,
and based on our review, find that we cannot sustain the rejection of appealed claims 1 through
262 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harrington et al (Harrington) in view of
Smith (answer, pages 3-4).
It is further well settled that in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness under
1 We have considered the brief filed October 29, 2002 (Paper No. 27).
2 Claim 27 is also pending and has been withdrawn from consideration by the examiner under
37 CFR § 1.142(b).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007