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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 ANDREW LILBURN
______________
Appeal No. 2005-1766
Application 10/050,167
_______________
HEARD: September 15, 2005
_______________
Before GARRIS, WARREN and TIMM, 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 appellant, in the brief and reply brief, and
based on our review, find that we cannot sustain the grounds of rejection advanced on appeal:
appealed claims 1 through 6, 18 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Lilburn (answer, page 3); appealed claims 7 through 17, 19 through 30 and 32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lilburn as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lewis,
with or without Justus and Ely, Sr. (answer, pages 3-4); and appealed claim 33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lilburn as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bossen
(answer, page 4).1,
1 Appealed claims 1 through 33 are all of the claims in the application upon entry of the
amendment filed May 3, 2004 (see answer, page 2). See the appendix to the brief.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007