Ex Parte Belik - Page 1






                                  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                              today was not written for publication and is not binding                               
                              precedent of the Board.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 JAROSLAV BELIK                                                  
                                                  ______________                                                     
                                               Appeal No. 2006-2421                                                  
                                               Application 10/346,773                                                
                                                 _______________                                                     
                                                     ON BRIEF                                                        
                                                 _______________                                                     
             Before GARRIS, 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 rejection of claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.            
             § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bergeron (answer, pages 3-4), and of claims 19 and 20               
             under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bergeron in view of Stash et al. (Stash)            
             (answer, page 4).1                                                                                      
                    We refer to the answer and to the brief for a complete exposition of the positions               
             advanced by the Examiner and Appellant.                                                                 
                    The principle issue in this appeal is whether one of ordinary skill in this art would have       
             practiced the claimed “method for applying a coating of lubricant on pipe threads” encompassed          
             by claims 17 through 20 in following the method used by Bergeron which employs the apparatus            

                                                                                                                    
             1  Claims 2 through 9, 15 and 16 are also of record and have been allowed by the Examiner.              

                                                     - 1 -                                                           



Page:  1  2  3  4  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007