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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 29
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte SCOTT M. HAMEL
______________
Appeal No. 2004-0951
Application 09/498,309
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before PAK, 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 appellant, in the brief and reply brief, and
based on our review, find that we cannot sustain the rejection of appealed claims 1 through 5 and
22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art in the specification
at page 1, line 15, through page 3, line 6, and FIGs. 1A and 1B of the specification, in view of
Suzuki et al. (Suzuki ‘743); and of appealed claims 6 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the admitted prior art in the specification at page 1, line 15, through page
3, line 6, and FIGs. 1A and 1B of the specification, in view of Suzuki ‘743 and further in view of
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007