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was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of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. 11
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte DAVID J. ZANIG,
PAUL H. SANDSTROM, JOSEPH W. MILLER
and RICHARD R. SMITH
______________
Appeal No. 1998-3256
Application 08/692,325
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, KRATZ and TIMM, 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 the rejections of appealed claims 1 through 5, 7, 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Smith; of appealed claims 1 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Smith in view of Obrecht et al. (Obrecht) and Sandstrom et al. (Sandstrom); of
1, 2 and 6 through 10 under § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ogawa et al. (Ogawa); and of appealed
claims 1 through 10 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Smith, Obrecht and
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007