Ex parte KURODA et al. - 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                 (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 41                                 

                                        UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                                       
                                                                _______________                                                                         

                                              BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                                        
                                                            AND INTERFERENCES                                                                           
                                                                _______________                                                                         

                                           Ex parte TARO KURODA, MOTOHISA MIYAFUJI,                                                                     
                                              KENJU MINAMOTO, MITSUHIRO OHKUBO,                                                                         
                                                ROYICHI OZAKI and AKINORI TSUCHIYA                                                                      
                                                                 ______________                                                                         

                                                              Appeal No. 1997-2220                                                                      
                                                              Application 08/250,607                                                                    
                                                                _______________                                                                         

                                                           HEARD: November 1, 1999                                                                      
                                                                _______________                                                                         

                 Before KIMLIN, WARREN and OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                                         

                 WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                                                   
                                                            On Request For Rehearing                                                                    
                          Appellants request rehearing of our decision dated November 22, 1999 (Paper No. 39)                                           
                 affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 6, 10, 11, 14, 16, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.         103                              
                 as being unpatentable over Miura in view of Hensel and of claims 15 and 17 under          35 U.S.C.                                   
                 103 as being unpatentable over Miura in view of Hensel as applied to claims 14 and 16, and further in                                  
                 view of Shinohara.  Appellants contend that (1) our opinion includes a new ground of rejection that was                                
                 not designated as such under 37 CFR  1.196(b) (1997), and (2) that we “made various findings of fact                                  
                 that were clearly erroneous, and various conclusions of law that were not in accordance with law”                                      


                                                                    - 1 -                                                                               



Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007