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was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of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 CHIN-SHIEN YANG,
CHUAN-HUAI CHEN and CHENG-KUN LIN
______________
Appeal No. 1999-0801
Application 08/552,245
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KIMLIN, PAK and WARREN, 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 claims 6 and 7, all of the claims in the application, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hanak et al. (Hanak) in view of the admitted prior art in
appellants’ specification (Figures 1 and 2 as described at pages 1-5) and the rejection of appealed
claims 8 through 111 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over (Hanak) in view of the
1 Claims 6 through 11 are all of the claims remaining in the application See specification, page 12, and
the amendments of September 8, 1997 (Paper No. 9).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007