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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 KEVIN R. KEEGAN
and DIANE M. ENGLAND
______________
Appeal No. 2005-2567
Application 10/032,606
_______________
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 of appealed claim
2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (November 29, 2000) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Mieney et al. (Mieney) (answer, pages 4-7).1
We refer to the answer and to the brief and reply brief for a complete exposition of the
respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellants.
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the preambular language of claim 2
1 Claim 2 is the sole claim on appeal. See the appendix to the brief. Claims 3 through 15 are also
of record and have been withdrawn from consideration by the examiner under 37 CFR
§ 1.142(b).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007