Ex parte JUSO et al. - 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               journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 26           
                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                    ____________                                      
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                 AND INTERFERENCES                                    
                                    ____________                                      
                      Ex parte HIROMI JUSO, YUKIHIKO HAIKAWA,                         
                                 and YUKIHARU HOSONO                                  
                                    ____________                                      
                                 Appeal No. 96-1421                                   
                               Application 08/065,773                                 
                                    ____________                                      
                              HEARD:  17 September 1997                               
                                    ____________                                      
          Before THOMAS, JERRY SMITH, and TORCZON, Administrative Patent              
          Judges.                                                                     
          TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judge.                                       
               This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134 from the final                 
          rejection of claims 1-15.  (Paper 14.)  No other claims are                 
          pending.  (Paper 7 at 1.)  We reverse.                                      
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
               We have reviewed the record in its entirety in light of the            
          arguments of Applicants and the examiner.  Our decision presumes            
          familiarity with the entire record.  A preponderance of the                 
          evidence of record supports each of the fact findings.                      
               1.   The application is entitled "Information reproducing              
          apparatus by which reading operation from recording medium is               






Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007