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was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of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. 23
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte HIROMICHI KANO
______________
Appeal No. 1997-1916
Application 08/375,507
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, OWENS and WALTZ, 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, 2 and 4 through 10.1
We cannot sustain the ground of rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph, in which the examiner finds that there is no “support in the originally filed
specification for the limitation ‘whereby the coating layer is made to have permeability to air and
moisture without addition of a separate forming agent’ (see claim 1)” (answer, pages 3 and 5).
Appellant points to the recitation “layer 3 is rendered permeable to air and moisture by inclusion of the
1 See the amendment of January 18, 1995 (Paper No. 11) and of July 18, 1995 (Paper No. 14), and
specification, pages 11-12.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007