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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 45
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte GEORGE TASH
______________
Appeal No. 2005-2543
Application 08/637,894
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KIMLIN, 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 supplemental answer mailed March 25, 2005, and
appellant, in the brief and the reply brief to the supplemental answer filed May 6, 2005,1 and
based on our review, find that we cannot sustain the grounds of rejection advanced on appeal:
appealed claims 1, 2, 6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Scarella (supplemental
answer, pages 4-5);2 and appealed claims 1, 2, 6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Scarella and Tash as applied in the ground of rejection set forth at pages 5-6 of
1 The supplemental answer was filed in response to our remand entered August 9, 2004, in
Appeal No. 2004-1604 in this application, and appellant filed the reply brief in response.
2 Appealed claims 1, 2, 6 and 9, set forth in the appendix to the brief, are all of the claims
remaining in the application after entry of the amendment of May 6, 2005, canceling claims 3, 4
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007