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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 29
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte DENNIS G. PEIFFER,
BRID DILWORTH and ROBERT DRYDEN TACK
______________
Appeal No. 2004-1566
Application 09/452,982
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before GARRIS, WARREN 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 based on our
review, find that we cannot sustain the rejections of appealed claims 42 through 46, 58 and
60 through 62,1 all of the claims in the application, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e) as
being unpatentable over Krull et al. (Krull).2,3
1 See the appendix to the brief.
2 Answer, pages 3-6.
3 While the examiner has applied Krull under §§ 102(a) and 102(e), we find that Krull issued
January 6, 1998, more than one year before the present application was filed on December 2,
1999. On this record, Krull is an available reference with respect to the claimed invention under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007