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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 43
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte FRANK R. BRYANT
______________
Appeal No. 2003-2130
Application 08/159,461
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, MCQUADE and WARREN, 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 grounds of rejection advanced on appeal:
appealed claims 1, 7 through 9, 34, 40 through 45, 56 and 58 through 65 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, written description (answer, pages 4 and 6-8); and appealed claims 66 through
69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Geipel, Jr. et al. (Geipel) in view of
Haddad et al. (Haddad) (answer, pages 4-5 and 8).1
1 In addition to the appealed claims, claims 70 through 73 are also of record and have been
withdrawn from consideration by the examiner under 37 CFR § 1.142(b) in the Office action
mailed November 30, 2001 (Paper No. 33).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007