Ex parte HARA 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               journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the                        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. 31           

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                    ____________                                      
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                 AND INTERFERENCES                                    
                                    ____________                                      
                    Ex parte TAKAHISA HARA, MASAHITO MATSUMOTO,                       
                        NOBUHIRO USUI and SIGEYOSHI MATHUBARA                         
                                    ____________                                      
                                Appeal No. 1997-2256                                  
                             Application No. 08/427,706                               
                                    ____________                                      
                                 HEARD: May 16, 2000                                  
                                    ____________                                      

          Before CALVERT, FRANKFORT, and GONZALES, Administrative Patent              
          Judges.                                                                     
          FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent Judge.                                     




                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This is a decision on appeal from the examiner’s final                 
          rejection of claims 6 through 11, which are all of the claims               







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

Last modified: November 3, 2007