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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 41
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte TARO KURODA, MOTOHISA MIYAFUJI,
KENJU MINAMOTO, MITSUHIRO OHKUBO,
ROYICHI OZAKI and AKINORI TSUCHIYA
______________
Appeal No. 1997-2220
Application 08/250,607
_______________
HEARD: November 1, 1999
_______________
Before KIMLIN, WARREN and OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
On Request For Rehearing
Appellants request rehearing of our decision dated November 22, 1999 (Paper No. 39)
affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 6, 10, 11, 14, 16, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Miura in view of Hensel and of claims 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Miura in view of Hensel as applied to claims 14 and 16, and further in
view of Shinohara. Appellants contend that (1) our opinion includes a new ground of rejection that was
not designated as such under 37 CFR § 1.196(b) (1997), and (2) that we “made various findings of fact
that were clearly erroneous, and various conclusions of law that were not in accordance with law”
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007