The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte ERNST HELD,
WOLFGANG SCHNEID and PETER ZWEIGLE
______________
Appeal No. 2004-0868
Application 09/742,980
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before GARRIS, WARREN and OWENS, 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, 2, 4 and
5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Hwang, and of appealed claims 3 and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Takase et al. (Takase).1, 2
It is well settled that in making out a prima facie case of anticipation, each and every
element of the claimed invention, arranged as required by the claims, must be found in a single
1 A copy of the appealed claims appears in the appendix to the brief.
2 The examiner states that the grounds of rejection are set forth in the final action mailed
December 17, 2002 (Paper No. 14). See answer, pages 2-4.
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007