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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte TAKASHI ONISHI and TOSHIKAI HATA
______________
Appeal No. 96-2185
Application 08/205,8211
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before METZ, 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, 5 and 6.2
We have carefully considered the record before us, and based thereon, find that we
cannot sustain the ground of rejection of claims 1, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mraz et al. in
1Application for patent filed March 2, 1994. According to appellants, this application is a continuation
of application 07/699,110, filed May 13, 1991, now abandoned.
2See amendment of March 2, 1994 (Paper No. 22).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007