Ex parte HIJIKATA - 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               today was not written for publication and is not binding               
          precedent of the Board.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. 30                   

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                  ________________                                    
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                  ________________                                    
                              Ex parte MAKOTO HIJIKATA                                
                                  ________________                                    
                                Appeal No. 2001-0027                                  
                               Application 09/110,397                                 
                                  ________________                                    
                               HEARD: FEBRUARY 7, 2002                                
                                  ________________                                    
          Before JERRY SMITH, DIXON and SAADAT, Administrative Patent                 
          Judges.                                                                     
          SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.                                        

                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This is a decision on appeal from the Examiner’s final                 
          rejection of claims 5, 7 through 9, 11, 12, 14, 16 and 17.                  
          Claims 1 through 4 have been canceled while claims 6, 10, 13,               
          15 and 18 have been allowed by the Examiner.                                
               We reverse.                                                            
                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               Appellant’s invention is directed to an on-vehicle                     
          navigation system that considers the user’s run experience                  





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007