Ex parte YU 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          (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 18              

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                    _____________                                     
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                    _____________                                     
                     Ex parte PHILLIP C. YU, DAVID L. BACKFISCH,                      
                      JOHN B. SLOBODNIK and THOMAS G. RUKAVINA                        
                                    _____________                                     
                                Appeal No. 1997-3302                                  
                             Application No. 08/152,338                               
                                   ______________                                     
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                   _______________                                    

          Before JOHN D. SMITH, WALTZ, and LIEBERMAN, Administrative                  
          Patent Judges.                                                              
          JOHN D. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.                                 

                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This is an appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C.  134 from the                 
          final rejection of claims 21 through 39.                                    
               Claim 21 is representative and is reproduced below:                    
               21. A method for fabricating an electrochromic article                 
                                          1                                           





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007