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publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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