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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 39
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte LIUBO HONG, RONALD A. BARR
and DASHUN STEVE ZHOU
______________
Appeal No. 2003-0323
Application 09/268,088
______________
ON BRIEF
______________
Before KIMLIN, WARREN and WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
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 appellants’ brief and reply
brief, and based on our review, find that we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 14,
23 though 25, 27 through 29, and 31, as amended after final rejection, which are all of the claims
remaining in this application.1
The references relied on by the examiner as evidence of obviousness are:
Desserre 4,771,350 September 13, 1988
Cohen et al. (Cohen) 5,703,740 December 30, 1997
Dill, Jr. et al. (Dill) 6,226,149 May 1, 2001
1 Claim 26 was cancelled in the amendment after final dated April 17, 2002, which was entered
as per the Advisory Action mailed April 23, 2002.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007