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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte CONRAD YU
______________
Appeal No. 2002-1768
Application 08/846,196
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, WALTZ and LIEBERMAN, 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 1 through 10, 12 through 20
and 22 through 26,1 all of the claims in the application, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ohki et al., Cook et al. and Gotoh et al. (Gotoh).2
We find that, when considered in light of the written description in the specification as
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art, see, e.g., In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54
USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1 See the amendments of September 27, 1999 (Paper No. 7).
2 Answer, pages 3-6.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007