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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 34
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte WILLIAM G. HARTMAN,
THOMAS C. EPPLE, ROGER H. MANN
and EDWARD I. SUN
______________
Appeal No. 2001-1698
Application 08/864,176
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, OWENS 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 reply brief,
and based on our review, find that we cannot sustain the rejection of appealed claims 1 through
10, 34, 35, 40, 41 and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schwarz in view
of either of Komiya et al. (Komiya)1 or Leonard et al. (Leonard), and further in view of Cohrs et
1 Komiya was cited as “Toppan” in the answer (page 3). The examiner cited this Japanese patent
document per se (id.) and a translation thereof prepared from the USPTO by Diplomatic
Language Services, Inc. in March, 1996 is in the record. However, the examiner applies an
abstract of this document in the stating the ground of rejection (answer, page 4). While the
abstract is a different document than the Japanese patent document, we find no evidence in the
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007