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was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of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. 11
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte WOSSANG CHUN,
GEORGE W. GRAHAM and ROBERT W. McCABE
______________
Appeal No. 1998-1584
Application 08/711,631
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before GARRIS, WARREN and PAWLIKOWSKI, 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 rejection of appealed claims 1 through 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yao et al. (Yao) in view of Mullhaupt, or the rejection of appealed claims 7
through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Horiuchi et al. (Horiuchi) in view of
Yao.1,2 We agree with appellants that the examiner has failed to make out a
1 See specification, pages 10-11. Claims 13 through 15 are also of record and have been withdrawn
by the examiner under 37 CFR § 1.142(b).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007