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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 LINDSEY H. HALL
and SCOTT R. SUMMERFELT
______________
Appeal No. 2006-0375
Application 10/447,581
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KIMLIN, PAK and WARREN, 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 6, 12 and 14 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Moise et al.
(Moise) (answer, pages 4-5); claims 7 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
Moise in view of Beintner et al. (answer, pages 5); claims 8 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Moise in view of Kato et al. (answer, pages 5-6); and claims 8 through
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moise in view of Torek et al.1
We refer to the answer and to the brief2 for a complete exposition of the positions
1 Claims 17 through 32 are also of record and have been withdrawn from consideration by the
examiner under 37 CFR § 1.142(b). Claims 1 through 32 are all of the claims in the application.
2 We consider the brief filed July 12, 2005.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007