Ex Parte HARTMAN et al - Page 1






                                       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                                   today was not written for publication and is not binding                                           
                                   precedent of the Board.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