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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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 RONALD DAVID BAKULE
______________
Appeal No. 2006-2393
Application 10/439,947
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, JEFFREY T. SMITH and GAUDETTE, 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,
3, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sarkar (answer,1 pages 3-4);
claims 2 through 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nyssen2 (answer, pages
4-5); claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sarkar or Nyssen as
applied to claims above, further in view of Paint and Surface Coatings (answer, pages 5-6); and
claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nyssen as applied to
1 We have considered the answer mailed February 2, 2006. We note that the examiner mailed a
supplemental answer on July 3, 2006, subsequent to the mailing of the Appeal Docketing Notice,
which is stated to only correct “section (8) to indicate references relied upon.”
2 There is no dispute that the published World Intellectual Property Organization Application
WO 00/60015, in German, is equivalent to United States Patent US 6,818,050 B1, and thus the
examiner has relied on the latter as a translation of the former (answer, page 4; brief, page 7).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007