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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 PIERRE REBREYEND,
DANIEL DERICQUEBOURG and DAVID FACOMPRE
______________
Appeal No. 2006-0316
Application 10/428,930
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before GARRIS, WARREN and WALTZ, 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
2 through 4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the
invention (answer, pages 4 and 10-11); claims 2 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Nath et al. (Nath) (answer, pages 5-9 and 11-17); claims 3, 6, 10 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nath (answer, pages 9 and 17-18); and claims 4 and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nath as applied to claim 2 above and
further in view of Mori, Okamoto et al. and Shintani (answer, pages 10 and 18-19).1,2
1 See the appendix to the brief. Claims 1, 5, 7, 8 and 12 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withdrawn from consideration by the examiner under 37 CFR § 1.142(b).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 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007