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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 IRWIN JEROLD SINGER
and CHARLES EDWARD BOLIAN II
______________
Appeal No. 2006-0806
Application 09/954,807
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KIMLIN, WARREN and FRANKLIN, 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 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Midkiff (answer, pages 3-5);
claims 13 through 26 and 29 through 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Midkiff in view of Drew (answer, pages 5-9); and claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Midkiff in view of the admitted prior art at page 1, l. 25, to page 2, l. 1, of the
specification (answer, pages 9-10).1
1 Claim 27 is also of record and have been withdrawn from consideration by the examiner under
37 CFR § 1.142(b). Claims 1 through 11 and 13 through 31 are all of the claims in the
application.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007