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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte GURTEJ S. SANDHU
and SUJIT SARAN
______________
Appeal No. 2000-1163
Application 08/649,262
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before PAK, WARREN and JEFFREY T. SMITH, 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, and based on our
review, find that we cannot sustain the rejections of appealed claims 1, 3 through 13, 15, 17, 18,
28 through 32 and 34, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Eichman et al. (Eichman); of
appealed claims 1 through 29 and 31 through 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as unpatentable over
Eichman in view of Nagashima et al.; and of appealed claims 1 through 13, 15, 17, 18, 28
through 30, 32 and 34 as being unpatentable over Eichman in view of Ghanayem et al.1,2
1 These are all of the claims in the application. See the amendments of November 10, 1997
(Paper No. 9) and June 29, 1998 (Paper No. 12)
2 Answer, pages 3-7.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007