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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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