Ex parte AZUMA et al. - Page 1







                    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                                      publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 14                        
                                         UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                                      
                                                                   ____________                                                                         
                                               BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                                       
                                                              AND INTERFERENCES                                                                         
                                                                   ____________                                                                         
                                Ex parte MASAMICHI AZUMA, CARLOS A. PAZ DE ARAUJO,                                                                      
                                              MICHAEL C. SCOTT and TOSHIYUKI UEDA                                                                       
                                                                   ____________                                                                         
                                                           Appeal No. 1998-0129                                                                         
                                                      Application No. 08/438,062                                                                        
                                                                   ____________                                                                         
                                                                      ON BRIEF                                                                          
                                                                   ____________                                                                         
                 Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH, and LEVY, Administrative Patent                                                                          
                 Judges.                                                                                                                                
                 LEVY, 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, 2, 4-7, and 25-                                                                            
                 27 .1                                                                                                                                  


                          1The examiner’s answer (page 2) states that “[c]laim 3 is objected to                                                         
                 as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if                                                               
                 written in independent form . . . .”  Appellants assert (reply brief, page 2)                                                          
                 that “the Examiner’s present indication that claim 3 is allowable if rewritten                                                         
                 in independent form constitutes a new grounds of rejection,” and that                                                                  
                 “Appellants’ attorney respectfully requests the Board to confirm or deny                                                               
                                                                                                            (continued...)                              






Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007