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today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.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. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte RYO ENOMOTO,
TAKU TASHIMA and TADASHI OZEKI
______________
Appeal No. 2004-1540
Application 10/036,498
_______________
ON BRIEF HEARD:
_______________
Before GARRIS, PAK and WARREN, 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 ground of rejection of appealed claims 1, 2, 4 and 6,1 all
of the claims in the application, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e) as being unpatentable over
Huber ‘044.2,3
1 See the appendix to the brief.
2 The examiner states in the answer (page 3) that the ground of rejection is set forth in the final
Office action of March 11, 2003 (Paper No. 7, pages 2-4), and adds further findings of fact in the
answer (pages 3-5).
3 We have considered United States Patent No. 6,287,044 to Huber (Huber ‘044), and not
Austrian Patent No. 407 286 to Huber (Huber ‘286) which is a cumulative disclosure as it
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007