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for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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