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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board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 MARK R. VISOKAY,
ANTONIO L. P. ROTONDARO,
and LUIGI COLOMBO
______________
Appeal No. 2005-1503
Application 10/165,888
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before GARRIS, TIMM and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent
Judges.
PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134, from
the examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 9. A copy of
claims 1, 3, 7, and 9 is set forth in the attached appendix.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)
as being anticipated by Duncombe.
Claims 3, 5, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Duncombe in view of Ma.
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Duncombe in view of Lin.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007