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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte KAZUO HIRAI
______________
Appeal No. 96-0071
Application 08/306,4371
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before GARRIS, WARREN and KRATZ, 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 13 through 31.2
We have carefully considered the record before us, and based thereon, find that we cannot
1Application for patent filed September 12, 1994. According to appellant, this application is a
continuation of application 08/064,554 (‘554 application), filed May 21, 1993, now abandoned, which
application is a continuation-in-part of application 07/943,420, filed September 14, 1992, now
abandoned.
2Amendment of January 10, 1994 in the ‘554 application (Paper No. 6); amendment of September
12, 1994 (Paper No. 12)..
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007