THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte DAVID J. SANDERS
FRANCOISE M. WINNIK and MARCEL P. BRETON
______________
Appeal No. 95-3537
Application 08/078,5331
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before JOHN D. SMITH, GARRIS and WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. ' 134 from the decision of the examiner refusing to
allow claims 1 through 20 as amended subsequent to the final rejection.2
We have carefully considered the record before us, and based thereon, find that we cannot
sustain the rejection of appealed claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C ' 103 over AMiyamoto et al.
or Fredrickson either taken in view of appellants= admissions (see for example page 22 of the
specification) and further in view of Ma@ (answer, pages 2 through 5).3 It is well settled that the
1 Application for patent filed June 16, 1993.
2 Amendment of August 19, 1994 (Paper No. 6).
3 The references relied on by the examiner are listed at page 2 of the answer. We refer to these
references in our opinion by the name associated therewith by the examiner.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007