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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 9
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte YU-EN PERCY CHANG
YURI IGOR MARKEVITCH and SCOTT THOMAS
______________
Appeal No. 2002-0471
Application 09/277,862
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, JEFFREY T. SMITH and MOORE, 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 rejections of appealed claims 1, 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deshpande et al. (Deshpande) in view of Toyoda et. al.
(Toyoda); of appealed claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deshpande
in view of Toyoda further in view of Strom; and of appealed claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Deshpande in view of Toyoda further in view of Suenaga et al.1,2
1 Appealed claims 1 through 5 are all of the claims in the application.
2 Answer, pages 3-5.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007