Ex Parte MOTOYAMA - 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                     publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 53                 
                               UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                  
                                                    ____________                                                          
                                   BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                     
                                                AND INTERFERENCES                                                         
                                                    ____________                                                          
                                           Ex parte TETSURO MOTOYAMA                                                      
                                                    ____________                                                          
                                                Appeal No. 1999-2767                                                      
                                              Application No. 08/738,461                                                  
                                                    ____________                                                          

              Before BARRETT, LEVY, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.                                        
              BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                   




                                           ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING                                                       
                     Appellant has filed a Request for Rehearing under 37 CFR § 1.197(b) (Paper No.                       
              52), requesting rehearing of our decision entered September 5, 2002, wherein we                             
              sustained the final rejection of claims 88-139 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.                                       
                     In our decision we determined that the metes and bounds of the claim recitation                      
              “electronic mail message” was a material inquiry in proper interpretation of the                            
              representative claims.  Appellant submitted that the term was well known in the art, and                    
              that formal definition could be found in technical dictionaries.                                            








Page:  1  2  3  4  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007