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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte HELMUT MANGOLD,
WERNER HARTMANN, DIETER KERNER
and PETER KLEINSCHMIT
______________
Appeal No. 2001-2546
Application 09/067,915
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, TIMM 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 appellants, in the brief and reply brief,
and based on our review, find that we cannot sustain the rejection of appealed claims 1 through 4,
6 and 7, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description requirement, the rejection of
appealed claims 1 through 3, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Zirngibl et al. (Zirngibl) or Saladin et al. (Saladin) or Hori each in view of Jacobson or Lee, and
the rejection of appealed claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zirngibl et
al. (Zirngibl) or Saladin et al. (Saladin) or Hori each in view of Jacobson or Lee, as applied to
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007