The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte MASARU MIZUTANI
__________
Appeal 2007-2640
Application 09/933,517
Technology Center 3600
__________
Decided: September 13, 2007
__________
Before ERIC GRIMES, LORA M. GREEN, and RICHARD M.
LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of claims 8-29
and 44. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF CASE
Claims 8-29 and 44, which are all the pending claims, are on appeal.
The following rejections are appealed in this proceeding (Answer 3-7):
1) Claims 8-10, 16, 18, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Meilahn (US 5,762,024, issued Jun. 9, 1998) in view
of Iseki (English translation of “Effect of Artificial Upwelling on Primary
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013