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was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of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. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte TOKUKI SATAKE,
KIYOSHI WATANABE, FUSAYUKI NANJO,
KOICHI TAKENOBU and HITOSHI MIYAMOTO
______________
Appeal No. 1997-3697
Application 08/273,455
_______________
HEARD: January 9, 2001
_______________
Before WARREN, LIEBERMAN and PAWLIKOWSKI, 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 3 and 4, all of the claims in the application.1
We have carefully considered the record before us, and based thereon, find that we cannot
sustain either of the grounds of rejection advanced by the examiner on appeal.2
1 Amendment of May 3, 1995 (Paper No. 8).
2 The examiner has not advanced the ground of rejection of claims 3 and 4 under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claim 5 of then co-pending application 08/296,134,
now United States Patent 5,501,914, that was of record in the final rejection of July 17, 1995 (Paper
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007