The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of
the Board.
Paper No. 34
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte OANA M. LEONTE
LEV V. GINZBURG and ROBERT S. DE HEER
______________
Appeal No. 1997-0045
Application 08/241,688
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, WALTZ and JEFFREY T. SMITH, 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, including the
opposing views of the examiner, in the answer, and appellants, in the brief, and based on our review,
find that we cannot sustain any of the three grounds of the rejections which encompass all of appealed
claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 41 and 421 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, all of which are based on Jablonsky in view of
1 These are all of the claims remaining in the application. See the amendment of May 15, 1995 (Paper
No. 19). In the amendment of March 29, 1996 (Paper No. 26), appellants canceled appealed claims
43 and 44.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007