Ex parte MIYAZAWA 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             for publication in a law journal and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 21         
                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                      
                                     ____________                                     
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                          
                                   AND INTERFERENCES                                  
                                     ____________                                     
                              Ex parte HIROSHI MIYAZAWA,                              
                                   KINYA MATSUZAWA,                                   
                               NORIO ITO, YASUSHI SOYA,                               
                                   and KOICHI SAITO                                   
                                     ____________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 1997-3279                                 
                              Application No. 08/240,702                              
                                     ____________                                     
                                       ON BRIEF                                       
                                     ____________                                     
          Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH, 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 21 and 28.  We reverse.                            


                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               The invention at issue in this appeal relates to                       
          brushless direct current (DC) motors.  A typical brushless DC               







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

Last modified: November 3, 2007