The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of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 CHAITANYA K. NARULA
HUNG-WEN JEN and HAREN S. GANDHI
______________
Appeal No. 1997-1798
Application 08/311,298
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before DOWNEY, GARRIS 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 refusing to allow
claims 1 through 3, 5 through 8, and 10 through 14 as amended subsequent to the final rejection.1
Claims 15 through 18 are also of record and have been withdrawn from consideration by the examiner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 Abe.2 It is well
1 Amendment of March 25, 1996 (Paper No. 10).
2 United States Patent 4,865,630, issued Sep. 12, 1989.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007