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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 23
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte MANFRED NEUBERGER
______________
Appeal No. 1999-2485
Application 08/737,118
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, TIMM 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 appellant, in the brief and reply brief, and
based on our review, find that we cannot sustain the rejection of appealed claims 9, 15 and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakatsuka et al. (Nakatsuka) in view of
Yoshikawa, Hurst et al. (Hurst) and Nakayama et al. (Nakayama), and of appealed claims 10
through 121 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakatsuka in view of
Yoshikawa, Hurst and Nakayama as applied to claim 15 further in view of Blanco.2 For the
reasons pointed out by appellant in the brief and reply brief, the examiner has failed to make out
1 Appealed claims 9 through 142, 15 and 16 are all of the claims in the application.
2 Answer, pages 3-7.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007