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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte HOWARD HUSS,
ELDON EADY and JAMES VARNEY
______________
Appeal No. 2004-0303
Application 09/439,457
_______________
HEARD: March 2, 2004
_______________
Before WARREN, DELMENDO and PAWLIKOWSKI, 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. § 134,1 including
the opposing views of the examiner, in the answer, and appellants, in the brief, supplemental
brief and reply brief, and based on our review, find that we cannot sustain the rejection of
appealed claim 1,2 the sole claim in the application, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fingar, Jr., et al. (Fingar) in view of Schoenmeyr and Dettmann et al.
(Dettmann).3
1 It is apparent from the record that appealed claim 1 has been at least twice rejected. See
37 CFR 1.191(a) (2002).
2 See the appendix to the brief.
3 Answer, pages 3-5. See also the non-final action mailed August 14, 2002 (Paper No. 17).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007