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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte YUKIHIKO TERASAWA
and MAKOTO HAMANO
______________
Appeal No. 1996-2089
Application 07/978,6261
_______________
HEARD: December 7, 1999
_______________
Before WARREN, WALTZ and LIEBERMAN, 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 11 through 20. Claims 1 through 10 are also of record and have been withdrawn from2
consideration by the examiner under 37 CFR § 1.142(b).
We have carefully considered the record before us, and based thereon, find that we cannot
sustain the ground of rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sato et al. in view of
1Application for patent filed November 19, 1992.
2See the specification, pages 18-20, and the amendment of March 23, 1994 (Paper No. 9).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007