Ex parte KAWATA - 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          (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 30           

                     UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                        
                                   _______________                                    
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                   _______________                                    
                             Ex parte TOSHIYUKI KAWATA                                
                                   _______________                                    
                                 Appeal No. 95-1516                                   
                              Application  07/672,4971                                
                                   _______________                                    
                                   RECONSIDERATION                                    
                                   _______________                                    
          Before THOMAS, KRASS, and FLEMING, Administrative Patent                    
          Judges.                                                                     
          KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         
                           ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION                             
               Appellant requests reconsideration of that part of our                 
          decision of June 19, 1997 wherein we entered a new ground of                
          rejection, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.196(b), against claims               
          1 through 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103.  Presumably,                       
          appellant has no problem with our reversal of the examiner’s                
          rejection of claims 1 through 6 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 and '                 
          112.                                                                        







Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007