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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 40
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MASAKI TAKEGAMI, KIMIAKI NAKAMURA,
TADASHI SAKURAI, and TEIJI UMENO
____________
Appeal No. 1997-4188
Application No. 08/373,528
____________
HEARD: OCTOBER 24, 2001
____________
Before COHEN, NASE, and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 3,
5 through 7, 10 through 15, and 17 through 20 (Paper No. 24).
According to the final rejection (Paper No. 19), claims 21
through 25, 27, and 28 stand allowed. In a main answer (Paper
No. 26), the examiner (1) points out that claim 28 was
inadvertently grouped in the final rejection with allowed claims,
and introduces a new ground of rejection and (2) notes that
appellants have withdrawn the appeal as to claims 17 through 20.
In light of the above, we have before us claims 1, 3, 5 through
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007