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             for publication in a law journal and is not binding precedent of the Board.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