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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 10
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte DOROTHEA McGEE
____________
Appeal No. 2004-0046
Application No. 10/001,3131
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before COHEN, STAAB, and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
NASE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1 to 20,
which are all of the claims pending in this application.
We AFFIRM.
1 In any further prosecution of the claimed subject matter, the examiner should ascertain if any of
the claims are anticipated by or made obvious from the appellant's Design Patent No. 423,732. This
patent is referred to on page 1 of the application and was cited in the Information Disclosure Statement
(Paper No. 2) filed by the appellant and considered by the examiner. This patent appears to qualify as
prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and may anticipate claims 1 and 10.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007