THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 39
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte ISAO TSUKAGOSHI,
YUTAKA YAMAGUCHI, ATSUO NAKAJIMA
and YASUSHI GOTO
______________
Appeal No. 94-3121
Application 07/853,8681
_______________
HEARD: February 2, 1998
_______________
Before DOWNEY, WARREN and OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner finally rejecting
claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 12 and 13, and refusing to allow claims 14 through 16 as amended subsequent to
the final rejection.2
We have carefully considered the record before us, and based thereon, find that we
cannot sustain either of the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (final rejection, Paper No.
18, pages 2-4; answer, Paper No. 24, page 3). It is well settled that the examiner may satisfy his
1 Application for patent filed March 20, 1992. According to appellants, this application is a
continuation of application 07/490,915, filed March 9, 1990, now abandoned.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007