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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 26
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte TAKEMI MURAYAMA
______________
Appeal No. 2003-1757
Application 10/003,202
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, OWENS and DELMENDO, 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 based on our
review, find that we cannot sustain the rejection of appealed claims 7 and 8, under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim
the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention, and the rejection of appealed claims
1 through 10,1 all of the claims in the application, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Cummings in view of Takano.2
1 Appealed claims 8 and 9 stand of record as amended in the amendment of January 23, 2003
(Paper No. 16) and appealed claims 1 through 7 and 10 are set forth in the appendix to the brief.
2 Answer, pages 4-7.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007