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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte W. HARRY SMITH
______________
Appeal No. 1998-1569
Application 08/485,081
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before PAK, WARREN and DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
We have carefully considered the record in this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134, including
the opposing views of the examiner, in the answer, and appellant, in the brief, and based on our
review, find that we cannot sustain the rejection of appealed claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Gomersall or Higuchi et al. (Higuchi) in view of Bohne; the rejection
of appealed claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gomersall or
Higuchi in view of Bohne and Stubbe et al. (Stubbe) or Tanighchi et al. (Tanighchi); the
rejection of appealed claims 5 through 8, 10, 11 and 13 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gomersall or Higuchi in view of Bohne and Pistor; and the rejection of
appealed claims 8, 9 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gomersall or
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007