Ex parte HIROO INABA - Page 1




                                  THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION                                                                
                         The opinion in support of the decision being entered                                                                 
                         today (1) was not written for publication in a law                                                                   
                         journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.                                                               
                                                                                                        Paper No. 31                          

                                    UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                                 
                                                         ________________                                                                     
                                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                                  
                                                        AND INTERFERENCES                                                                     
                                                         ________________                                                                     
                                         Ex parte HIROO INABA, SHINJI SAITO,                                                                  
                                                        and HIROSHI OGAWA                                                                     
                                                         ________________                                                                     
                                                       Appeal No. 96-2941                                                                     
                                                    Application 07/903,3531                                                                   
                                                         ________________                                                                     
                                                    HEARD:  August 6, 1996                                                                    
                                                         ________________                                                                     
                Before KIMLIN, JOHN D. SMITH  and WARREN, Administrative Patent2                                                                              
                Judges.                                                                                                                       
                KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                                          
                                                       DECISION ON APPEAL                                                                     
                         This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-12,                                                           
                14, 17-23, 25, 32, 41-43, 45, 46, 48, 49 and 51-59.  Claims 70,                                                               
                71, 73, 75, 77, 79 and 80 have been allowed by the examiner.                                                                  
                Claims 31, 35 and 40, the other claims remaining in the present                                                               



                         1Application filed June 24, 1992, for Reissue of U.S.                                                                
                Patent No. 5,051,320, issued September 24, 1991, based on                                                                     
                Application 07/309,580, filed February 9, 1989.                                                                               
                         2Administrative Patent Judge (APJ) McFarlane participated                                                            
                in the hearing of the appeal but resigned before this decision.                                                               
                APJ John D. Smith has been substituted on this merits panel.                                                                  
                                                                    -1-                                                                       



Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007