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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 INVNET RIVIER
______________
Appeal No. 2006-1211
Application 10/277,697
_______________
HEARD: May 23, 2006
_______________
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
27 through 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Forester (answer, pages 3-4); claims
1 through 3, 5, 7 through 14 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Forester and Maddox (answer, pages 4-6); claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Forester and Maddox as applied above, and further in view of Vadasz (answer,
pages 6-7); claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Forester and Maddox
as applied above, and further in view of Theeuwes et al. (Theeuwes) (answer, page 7); claims 15
through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Forester in view of Maddox and
Theeuwes as applied above, and further in view of Paluch (answer, pages 7-8); claims 19, 20 and
22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Forester and Maddox as applied
above, and further in view of Porzio et al. (answer, pages 8-9); claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007