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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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