1 A. Statement of the case
2 The appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) is from a final rejection of
3 claims 1-37.
4 Claims 2-7, 10-16, 18-21 and 23-37 were cancelled in an amendment
5 filed with the Appeal Brief.
6 The claims remaining are claims 1, 8-9, 17 and 22.
7 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
8 The real party is interest is Zenon Technology Partnership. Other
9 entities having some interest in the application are said to include (1) GE
10 Zenon ULC, (2) 1244734 Alberta ULC, (3) GE Betz Canada Company,
11 (4) GE Betzdearborn Canada Company, (5) GE Betz, Inc., (6) MRA
12 Investments Inc., (7) MRA System, Inc., (8) GE Investments, Inc., and
13 (9) the General Electric Company. Appeal Brief, page 1.
14 The Examiner relies on the following prior art
15 Mahendran U.S. Patent 5,472,607 05 December 1995
16 Brun U.S. Patent 3,948,781 06 April 1976
17 Both Mahendran and Brun are prior art vis-à-vis Appellants' claimed
18 subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
19 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 8-9, 17 and 22 as being anticipated
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Mahendran.
21 The Examiner also rejected claims 1, 8-9, 17 and 22 as being
22 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Mahendran
23 and Brun.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013