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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 D. WAYNE LEIDY
and FRANK J. DIFRANK
______________
Appeal No. 2006-0465
Application 10/445,707
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, WALTZ 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 8 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, page 12); claims 1 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement (answer, pages 10-11); claims
1 through 5 and 9 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Duga et al.
(Duga) (answer, pages 3-9), and claims 1 through 5 and 9 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Duga in view of Dorman (answer, page 10).1
1 Claims 1 through 16 are all of the claims in the application.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007