Ex parte HASEGAWA et al. - Page 1




             The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
             for publication in a law journal and is not binding precedent of the Board.
                                                                 Paper No. 53         
                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                      
                                     ____________                                     
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                          
                                   AND INTERFERENCES                                  
                                     ____________                                     
                               Ex parte MICHIO HASEGAWA                               
                                 and MASASHI SAHASHI                                  
                                     ____________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 1997-2046                                 
                              Application No. 08/059,350                              
                                     ____________                                     
                                 HEARD: July 12, 2000                                 
                                     ____________                                     
          Before HAIRSTON, BARRETT, and BARRY, Administrative Patent                  
          Judges.                                                                     
          BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         



                                  DECISION ON APPEAL                                  
               This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134 from                
          the  rejection of claims 40-63 and 65-85.  We reverse.                      


                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               The invention at issue in this appeal relates to an                    
          inductor used as a choke coil on the output side of a direct                
          current (DC)-to-DC converter.  Although the use of a planar                 







Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007