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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte JURGEN KOCH,
LEANDER STAAB, WOLFGANG KOHLWEILER
and KARL-ANTON STARZ
______________
Appeal No. 2002-2031
Application 09/115,553
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before WARREN, KRATZ and TIMM, 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 any of the grounds of rejection: claims 1
through 5, 9, 11 through 13 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Conn in view of Kawashima et al. (Kawashima); claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Conn in view of Kawashima, as applied to claims 1 through
5, 9, 11 through 13 and 16, further in view to applicants’ admissions (specification, page 7, lines
1-10); claims 7, 8 and 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Conn in view of Kawashima and applicants’ admissions (specification, page 7, lines 1-10), as
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007