Ex parte HAYAMA 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                    for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 21         
                    UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                         
                                     ____________                                     
                        BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                            
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                     ____________                                     
                       Ex parte HITOSHI HAYAMA, KENJI WATANABE,                       
                        TAKANOBU KAMEDA, and TOMOYUKI SHIMMURA                        
                                     ____________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 2000-0359                                 
                              Application No. 08/777,393                              
                                     ____________                                     
                                       ON BRIEF                                       
                                     ____________                                     
          Before FLEMING, RUGGIERO, and BARRY, Administrative Patent                  
          Judges.                                                                     
          BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         


                                  DECISION ON APPEAL                                  
               The examiner rejected claims 1 and 12.  The appellants                 
          appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).  We affirm.                      


                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               The invention at issue in this appeal generally relates                
          to laying out characters in a defined area, e.g., for the                   
          printing surface of a label.  Conventional character layout                 
          used in word processors, for example, employs a uniform                     






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

Last modified: November 3, 2007