Ex parte MARUYAMA 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                      for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 33         

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                     ____________                                     
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                          
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                     ____________                                     
                              Ex parte SYOICHI MARUYAMA,                              
                         SINICHI YAMASHIRO and KENJI MISHIMA                          
                                     ____________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 1997-1181                                 
                              Application No. 08/000,735                              
                                     ____________                                     
                                HEARD: AUGUST 16, 2001                                
                                     ____________                                     
          Before STAAB, NASE and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.                  
          BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.                                          



                                  DECISION ON APPEAL                                  
               This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's refusal               
          to allow claims 1 and 2.  In Paper No. 30, the examiner                     
          withdrew the prior art rejection of claims 3-5,1 the only                   
          other claims pending in this application.                                   




               1 Claims 3 and 4 were amended subsequent to the final rejection in Paper
          No. 11.                                                                     





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007