Ex parte FUKUDA et al. - Page 1

                          THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION                
                       This decision is not binding precedent of the Board.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 TSUYOSHI FUKUDA,                               
                         TATSUO KONNO, and TOSHIO MATSUMOTO                           
                                Appeal No. 1994-4024                                  
                             Application No. 07/759,865                               
                              ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING                                
          Before STONER, Chief Administrative Patent Judge, and CALVERT               
          and TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judges.                                  
          TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judge.                                       
                    DECISION ON REHEARING UNDER 35 U.S.C.  6(b)                      
               The examiner has requested reconsideration (Paper No. 29)              
          of the Board's decision on appeal (Paper No. 27) in which the               
          rejection was reversed.  Upon consideration of the request,                 
          the Appellant's response (Paper No. 30), and the                            
          administrative record of the application, rehearing is granted              
          and the rejection of claims 1-18 is affirmed.                               
               The appeal relates to a mount for attaching apparatus to               
          a camera.  In the examiner's answer, the examiner found that                
          the sole difference between the admitted prior art lens mounts              
          and the claimed subject matter was the limitation requiring                 

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007