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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte ULRICH BEGEMANN
and ALFRED SCHAULZ
______________
Appeal No. 2005-0659
Application 09/799,134
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KIMLIN, GARRIS 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 appellants, in the brief and reply brief,
and based on our review, find that we cannot sustain the grounds of rejections advanced on
appeal:
claims 1, 2, 5 through 9, 11, 12, 15 through 17, 20, 21, 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Shakespeare et al. (Shakespeare) (answer, pages 4-8);
claims 3, 4, 10, 13, 14, 18 and 27 through 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shakespeare in view of Wood et al. (Wood) (answer, pages 8-10);
claims 22 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Shakespeare in view of Gorinevsky et al. (Gorinevsky) (answer, page 10);
claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shakespeare in
view of Kuni (answer, page 11); and
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007