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was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of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. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte PATRICK KAPPLER,
JEAN L. PERILLON and CATHERINE SAVARY
______________
Appeal No. 1998-3162
Application 08/453,149
_______________
HEARD: November 7, 2001
_______________
Before WARREN, KRATZ and PAWLIKOWSKI, 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 appellants, in the brief,1 and based on our review,
find that we cannot sustain either of the rejections of appealed claims 1, 2, 5 through 7 and 10 through
12,2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mohri et al. (Mohri).3 We agree with
appellants that the examiner has failed to make out a prima facie case of obviousness.
1 We have considered the brief filed November 17, 2001 (Paper No. 17).
2 See the amendments of July 23, 1996 (Paper No. 9), and specification, pages 28-30. Claims 3 and 4
are also of record and have been withdrawn by the examiner under 37 CFR § 1.142(b).
3 Answer, pages 3-5.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007