The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 23
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte TOMO SAITO and MIKIO IKEDA
____________
Appeal No. 1997-2387
Application No. 08/082,3731
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before WINTERS, SPIEGEL, and ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SPIEGEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 7, 9, 10 and 12 through 19, which are all of the claims pending
2
in this application. Claims 1 and 4 are illustrative and read as follows.
1Application for patent filed June 28, 1993. According to appellants, this application is a
continuation-in-part of application 07/606,205 filed October 31, 1990, now abandoned.
2Appellants withdrew claims 8, 11 and 16 from consideration on appeal (see reply brief, page 2) and
cancelled claims 8, 11 and 16 in the amendment filed July 26, 1996 (Paper No. 20). Although the examiner
authorized entry of the amendment in a hand-written notation thereon, i.e., "OK to enter SCW," the
amendment has not been physically entered. Therefore, upon return of the application to the jurisdiction of
the examiner, this clerical oversight should be corrected.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007