Ex parte OKAYAMA 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          for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 22           
                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                    ____________                                      
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                    ____________                                      
              Ex parte AKIRA OKAYAMA, MICHIYA OKADA, TADAOKI MORIMOTO,                
            TOSHIMI MATSUMOTO, YOSHIMI YANAI, HIROSHI SATOH, TOSHIYA DOI,             
                          KAZUHIDE TANAKA and TAKAHIKO KATO                           
                                    ____________                                      
                                Appeal No. 1998-2756                                  
                             Application No. 08/448,137                               
                                    ____________                                      
                              HEARD:  February 9, 2000                                
                                    ____________                                      
          Before PAK, WARREN and WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judges.                 
          WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         
                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
              This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134 from the                        
          examiner’s final rejection of claims 8, 10 through 12, 15 and               
          18, which are the only claims remaining in this application.                
              According to appellants, the invention is directed to a                 
          method for producing an oxide-type superconducting flat wire                
          comprising a step of filling a metal tube with an oxide having              
          a superconducting property, drawing the tube into a rod wire                






Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007