Ex parte IIZUKA 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          was not written for publication and is not binding precedent                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. 31              


                     UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                        
                                     __________                                       
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                     __________                                       
                             Ex parte TOSHIHIRO IIZUKA,                               
                                  YUKIHITO ITO and                                    
                                    SHOJI TOYODA                                      
                                     __________                                       
                                Appeal No. 1997-3157                                  
                               Application 08/286,224                                 
                                     __________                                       
                             HEARD: September 11, 2001                                
                                     __________                                       

          Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH, and GROSS, Administrative Patent              
          Judges.                                                                     
          HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.                                      

                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1                 
          through 6.  In an Amendment After Final1 (paper number 17),                 

               1 According to the examiner (answer, page 3), the                      
          amendment had the effect of overcoming the indefiniteness                   
          rejection of claims 1 and 6.                                                
                                          1                                           





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007