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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte NOBUHIRO AKASAKA,
TATSUYA KAKUTA, KOHEI KOBAYASHI,
YAUSO MATSUDA and SHIGERU TOMITA
______________
Appeal No. 95-2773
Application 07/937,9531
_______________
HEARD: January 11, 1999
_______________
Before JOHN D. SMITH, PAK and WARREN, 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 through 5, which are all of the claims in the application.2
We have carefully considered the record before us, and based thereon, find that we cannot
sustain any of the grounds of rejection of all of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, written description and enablement, and second paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
1 Application for patent filed September 1, 1992.
2 See specification, page 9, and the amendment of December 16, 1993 (Paper No. 7).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007