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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte SHIGERU OHTAWA
JUNICHI ONODERA and KOUJI HARADA
______________
Appeal No. 95-3945
Application 08/204,9221
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WEIFFENBACH, WARREN and WALTZ, 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 finally rejecting
claims 22 through 27.
The examiner has premised his rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. '1032 on his
1 Application for patent filed March 2, 1994. According to appellants, this application is a continuation
of application 07/871,142, filed April 20, 1992, now Patent No. 5,344,747, issued September 6,
1994, which is a division of application 07/622,320, filed December 6, 1990, now Patent No.
5,147,759, issued September 15, 1992, which is a continuation of application 07/332,917, filed April
4, 1989, now abandoned.
2 In his letter of March 1, 1995 (Paper No. 12), the examiner withdrew the new ground of rejection of
the appealed claims under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007