The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte CHRISTY MEI-CHU WOO,
ERIC N. PATON and SUSAN TOVER
______________
Appeal No. 2004-0784
Application 09/826,078
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, TIMM and JEFFREY T. SMITH, 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 reply brief,
and based on our review, find that we cannot sustain the grounds of rejection of appealed claims
4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 through 15, which appear from the official record to be all of the claims in the
application:1 claims 4, 5, 7, 10, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Gupta et al. (Gupta), admitted prior art at page 2, lines 17-25, of the specification (admitted prior
art) and Wolf et al. (Wolf); claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Gupta, admitted prior art and Wolf as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Chen et
1 See the appendix to the brief.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007