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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 LEONARD R. SOKOLA, SR.
______________
Appeal No. 2006-0288
Application 10/611,765
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before PAK, 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, and based
on our review, find that we cannot sustain the grounds of rejection advanced on appeal:
claims 1 through 5, 7 and 10 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Buj (answer, page 4);
claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Buj (answer, page
4);
claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Buj in view
of Gruneisen (answer, page 4);
claims 13, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Buj in
view of Brownell (answer, pages 4-5); and
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007