Appeal 2007-1378
Application 10/327,459
1 B. Record on appeal
2 In deciding this appeal, we have considered only the following
3 documents:
4 1. Specification, including original claims.
5 2. Drawing
6 3. Office action entered 26 October 2005.
7 4. Office action entered 04 April 2006
8 5. Corrected Appeal Brief on appeal filed 02 August 2006
9 6. Examiner’s Answer entered 31 August 2006
10 7. Tenengauzer
11 8. Curatolo
12 9. Singer
13 10. PTO bibliographic data sheet
14 11. Rouhi, The Right Stuff, 18 Chemical and Engineering News 26-33
15 (Feb. 23, 2003), a copy of which appears in the Evidence Appendix of the
16 appeal brief.
17 12. Claims on appeal.
18
19 C. Issues
20 There are two principal issues on appeal.
21 The first issue is whether appellants have sustained their burden of
22 showing that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims on appeal as being
23 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tenengauzer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013