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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 YEH-HUNG LAI, SURESH SUNDERRAJAN,
THADDEUS S. GULA, WILLIAM A, MRUK,
NARASIMHARAO DONTULA, GARY D. SMITH
and YUANQIAO RAO
______________
Appeal 2006-2835
Application 10/033,496
Technology Center 1700
_______________
Decided: [date of mailing]
_______________
Before GARRIS, 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 of appealed claims 2 through 8 and 18 through 21, all of
the claims in the application, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (2002) as being
anticipated by Dontula ‘976 and by Dontula ‘656 (Answer 3-6).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007