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was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of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. 39
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte NOBUYOSHI NISHIKAWA, EIICHI OKUNO,
TOSHIHARU HORIE, ZYUNZO MAKINO and HIROSHI AOKI
______________
Appeal No. 1997-2495
Application 08/200,554
_______________
HEARD: October 24, 2000
_______________
Before KIMLIN, WARREN and JEFFREY T. SMITH, 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 9, 10, 12 through 14 and 18 through 21 which are all of the claims in the application.1
We have carefully considered the record before us, and based thereon, find that we cannot
sustain the rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gehle in view of “the prior art
admission” and further in view of either Favre et al. or Gautier et al. (answer,
1 See the amendments of September 11, 1995 (Paper No. 27), June 12, 1995 (Paper No. 21), and
February 22, 1994 (Paper No. 13). We observe that the amendment of February 22, 1994 (Paper No.
13) has not been clerically entered with respect to the cancellation of claim 1 as seen from the
amendment of June 9, 1993 in parent application 07/964,696 (Paper No. 6).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007