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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 30
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte ISAMU HANYU, MITSUJI NUNOKAWA
and SATORU ASAI
________________
Appeal No. 95-1487
Application 07/813,3871
________________
HEARD: January 16, 1998
________________
Before KIMLIN, PAK and WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4-16, which are the only
claims remaining in this application.
According to appellants, the invention is directed to an
optical exposure mask for patterning an optical beam and a method
Application for patent filed December 27, 1991.1
-1-
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007