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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 23
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte PIERRE BARTHELEMY
and PIERRE DOURNEL
______________
Appeal No. 2003-2023
Application 09/581,440
_______________
HEARD: January 21, 2004
_______________
Before WARREN, TIMM and DELMENDO, 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 brief, and based on our
review, find that we cannot sustain the rejection of appealed claims 1, 2, 11 and 13 through 171
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Flynn et al., United States Patent 5,814,595 (Flynn
‘595), and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable Flynn et al., United States Patent
5,814,595 (Flynn ‘595) further in view of Flynn et al., United States Patent 5,827,212
1 Claims 4 through 9 are also pending and are drawn to subject matter held to be allowable by
the examiner. See the Office action of March 8, 2002 (Paper No. 11). The claims of record are
set forth in the appendix to the brief.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007