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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 FRANCO LEONARDI,
JOHN MATHEWS GINDER and ROBERT CORBLY MCCUNE
______________
Appeal No. 2005-1134
Application 10/064,583
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, OWENS and KRATZ, 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 rejections advanced on appeal: appealed
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over British Patent 1 444 858 (‘858 patent) (answer, page 3); and
appealed claims 2 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the ‘858
patent (answer, page 4).1,
1 Appealed claims 1 through 10 are all of the claims in the application. See the appendix to the
brief.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007