Ex Parte Banerjee et al - Page 1



                        The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is                            
                                      not binding precedent of the Board.                                        

                        UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                
                                                ____________                                                     
                              BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                 
                                           AND INTERFERENCES                                                     
                                                ____________                                                     
                         Ex parte DEBASISH BANERJEE and KENTAROH NOJI                                            
                                                ____________                                                     
                                              Appeal 2007-0914                                                   
                                            Application 09/904,734                                               
                                           Technology Center 2100                                                
                                                ____________                                                     
                                         Decided: September 5, 2007                                              
                                                ____________                                                     

                Before JAMES D. THOMAS, JOHN C. MARTIN,                                                          
                and ST. JOHN COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judges.                                            
                THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                             


                                           DECISION ON APPEAL                                                    


                       This appeal involves claims 1-27. We have jurisdiction under                              
                35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a).                                                                    
                       Independent claims 1 and 12 are reproduced below as best                                  
                representative of the disclosed and claimed invention:                                           





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013