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was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of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. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte ERIK SIMONSON, MATS WALLIN,
SUNE BENGTSSON and ERIK DAHLQVIST
______________
Appeal No. 1997-4399
Application 08/505,338
_______________
HEARD: January 24, 2001
_______________
Before JOHN D. SMITH, WARREN, and DELMENDO, 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 1 through 11.1
We have carefully considered the record before us, and based thereon, find that we cannot
sustain the ground of rejection of claims 1 through 8 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Murray and Anderson et al., and the ground of rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kignell in view of Murray and Perry et al.2,3
1 See the amendments of August 29, 1996 (Paper No. 8) and September 18, 1996 (Paper No. 10).
2 The references are listed at page 3 of the answer.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007