Ex parte IWATA 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               was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not                                                    
               binding precedent of the Board.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. 27                           

                                 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                        
                                       BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                         
                                                    AND INTERFERENCES                                                             
                               Ex parte YOSHIFUMI IWATA and KIYOSHI KUCHIKI                                                       
                                                   Appeal No. 96-1899                                                             
                                               Application 07/936,0071                                                            
                                                          ON BRIEF                                                                

               Before THOMAS, FLEMING, and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent                                                      
               CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                           

                                                   DECISION ON APPEAL                                                             

                      This is an appeal from the final rejection of Claims 1-4, 8,                                                
               9, and 11.  Claim 10 is objected to as being dependant on a                                                        
               rejected base claim, but otherwise allowable.  The other claims                                                    
               remaining in the application, Claims 5-7 and 12-17, were                                                           
               indicated as allowable in the Examiner’s Answer.                                                                   
                      We reverse.                                                                                                 

                      1Application for patent filed August 27, 1992.                                                              

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007