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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 PETRUS CORNELIS PAULUS BOUTEN, GIOVANNI NISATO, PETER
JAN SLIKKERVEER, HENRICUS FRANCISCUS JOHANNUS JACOBUS VAN
TONGEREN, ELIAV ITZHAK HASKAL, and PAUL VAN DER SLUIS
_____________
Appeal No. 2005-0243
Application No. 10/106,951
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
In a decision dated January 14, 2005, the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 1 through 4, 6, 7, 12, 15 through
18 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) was affirmed, and the decision
of the examiner rejecting claims 20 through 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) was affirmed.
Appellants now argue (request, page 3) that:
The Decision dated 14 January 2005 fails to cite
anything in Moore which discloses that the
pipe/substrate (and not merely a side thereof) is
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007