Ex parte TSUKAGOSHI 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                                   (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 39                                 
                                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                                       
                                                                _______________                                                                        
                                              BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                                       
                                                            AND INTERFERENCES                                                                          
                                                                _______________                                                                        
                                                       Ex parte ISAO TSUKAGOSHI,                                                                       
                                              YUTAKA YAMAGUCHI, ATSUO NAKAJIMA                                                                         
                                                              and YASUSHI GOTO                                                                         
                                                                 ______________                                                                        
                                                               Appeal No. 94-3121                                                                      
                                                             Application 07/853,8681                                                                   
                                                                _______________                                                                        
                                                           HEARD: February 2, 1998                                                                     
                                                                _______________                                                                        
                 Before DOWNEY, WARREN and OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                                        
                 WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                                                  
                                                       Decision on Appeal and Opinion                                                                  
                          This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner finally rejecting                                  
                 claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 12 and 13, and refusing to allow claims 14 through 16 as amended subsequent to                                     
                 the final rejection.2                                                                                                                 
                                   We have carefully considered the record before us, and based thereon, find that we                                  
                 cannot sustain either of the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (final rejection, Paper No.                                   
                 18, pages 2-4; answer, Paper No. 24, page 3).  It is well settled that the examiner may satisfy his                                   
                                                                                                                                                      
                 1  Application for patent filed March 20, 1992. According to appellants, this application is a                                        
                 continuation of application 07/490,915, filed March 9, 1990, now abandoned.                                                           


                                                                    - 1 -                                                                              



Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007