Ex parte IGARASHI et al. - Page 1




           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           for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 25         
                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                      
                                     ____________                                     
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                          
                                   AND INTERFERENCES                                  
                                     ____________                                     
                      Ex parte KATSUJI IGARASHI, JUN YONEMITSU,                       
                          YOICHI YAGASAKI, YASUSHI FUJINAMI,                          
                             TOMOYUKI SATO, MOTOKI KATO,                              
                                  and TERUHIKO SUZUKI                                 
                                     ____________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 1998-1322                                 
                              Application No. 08/454,068                              
                                     ____________                                     
                                  HEARD: May 16, 2000                                 
                                     ____________                                     
          Before BARRETT, RUGGIERO, and BARRY, Administrative Patent                  
          Judges.                                                                     
          BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         


                                  DECISION ON APPEAL                                  
               This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134                 
          from the final rejection of claims 5, 11, 14, and 18.  We                   
          reverse.                                                                    


                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               The invention at issue in this appeal relates to                       
          predictive encoding and decoding of a television picture.  By               






Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007