THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
This decision is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 31
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte TSUYOSHI FUKUDA,
TATSUO KONNO, and TOSHIO MATSUMOTO
____________
Appeal No. 1994-4024
Application No. 07/759,865
____________
ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
____________
Before STONER, Chief Administrative Patent Judge, and CALVERT
and TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judges.
TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REHEARING UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
The examiner has requested reconsideration (Paper No. 29)
of the Board's decision on appeal (Paper No. 27) in which the
rejection was reversed. Upon consideration of the request,
the Appellant's response (Paper No. 30), and the
administrative record of the application, rehearing is granted
and the rejection of claims 1-18 is affirmed.
BACKGROUND
The appeal relates to a mount for attaching apparatus to
a camera. In the examiner's answer, the examiner found that
the sole difference between the admitted prior art lens mounts
and the claimed subject matter was the limitation requiring
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007