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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 43
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MASATAKE HAYASHI
____________
Appeal No. 1996-2437
Application No. 08/121,255
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, LALL, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
REQUEST FOR REHEARING
In a decision dated November 8, 1999, the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 1 through 12 and 18 through 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 was affirmed.
Appellant argues (Request, page 2) that the Board
misinterpreted the phrase "continuous space." Appellant
(Request, pages 2 and 3) points to portions of the specification
to show how "continuous space" should be interpreted. As we
explained in our decision of November 8, 1999, although the
claims are to be read in light of the specification, we will not
read limitations from the specification into the claims. See
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. , 849 F.2d
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007