Ex parte MIYADA 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                   for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 13                                              
                                         UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                                                  
                                                                         __________                                                                                 
                                                BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                                                  
                                                                AND INTERFERENCES                                                                                   
                                                                         __________                                                                                 
                                                          Ex parte CHARLES G. MIYADA,                                                                               
                                            ARTHUR C. SWITCHENKO, MELANIE W. QUONG                                                                                  
                                                              and MAN-YING L. WONG                                                                                  
                                                                         __________                                                                                 
                                                                 Appeal No. 1997-3378                                                                               
                                                                 Application 08/487,946                                                                             
                                                                         __________                                                                                 
                                                                          ON BRIEF                                                                                  
                                                                         __________                                                                                 
                   Before WILLIAM F. SMITH, SCHEINER, and MILLS, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                                      
                   MILLS,  Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                                                             
                                                                DECISION ON APPEAL                                                                                  
                            This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. 134 from the examiner's final                                                             
                                                        1                                                                                                           
                   rejection of claims 5-9, 40  [sic 39], 41 and 42.  Claims 41 and 42 have been                                                                    
                   withdrawn from consideration by the examiner in Paper No. 7, mailed July 11, 1996.                                                               



                            1The final rejection rejects claims 5-9, 40, however, appellants point out that claim                                                   
                   40 was canceled at the time of filing of the present application and believe that the                                                            
                   rejection is applied to claim 39 instead of claim 40.   Appeal Brief, page 2.   See also                                                         
                   Paper No. 4, page 2, referencing claim 39.                                                                                                       
                                                                                 1                                                                                  




Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007