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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 GREGORY S. MARCZAK
and RICK A. MINNER
______________
Appeal No. 2005-2573
Application 09/899,591
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, OWENS and JEFFREY T. SMITH, 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, and based
on our review, find that we cannot sustain the grounds of rejections advanced on appeal:
appealed claims 1, 3, 4, 6 through 10, 13 through 17, 20, 22, 23, 26 through 28 and 32 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Arrowsmith et al. (Arrowsmith ‘752) in view of
the publication to Arrowsmith et al. (Arrowsmith), and in further view of Shepard, Beckett et al.
(Beckett), Schneeberger et al. (Schneeberger) and Mosier (final action mailed September 3, 2004
(hereinafter final action), pages 6-9);1 appealed claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Arrowsmith ‘752 in view of Arrowsmith, Shepard, Beckett, Schneeberger and
1 The examiner states in the answer (page 2) that the grounds of rejection are set forth in the
final action.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007