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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 GERALD KEITH SOSALLA
JOHN DAVID AMUNDSON and ANDREW KUO
______________
Appeal No. 2006-0130
Application 10/161,166
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, KRATZ 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, and based
on our review, find that we cannot sustain the grounds of rejection advanced on appeal: claims
10, 13, 14, 16 through 18, 21, 22 and 24 through 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Clancy in view of Craig et al. (Craig) (final action mailed June 15,
2004 (final action), pages 2-4); and claims 11 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Clancy in view of Craig, further in view of Mertens (final action, page
5).1,2
1 Claims 10, 11, 13, 14, 16 through 19, 21, 22 and 24 through 26 are all of the claims in the
application. See the appendix to the brief.
2 The examiner states that the grounds of rejection are as set forth in the final action (answer,
page 3).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007