Ex Parte MATSUDA 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               today was not written for publication and is not                       
               binding precedent of the Board.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. 43                   

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                  ________________                                    
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                  ________________                                    
            Ex parte SHINYA MATSUDA, NORIYUKI OKISU and HIROSHI NAGASHIMA             
                                  ________________                                    
                                Appeal No. 2001-0877                                  
                               Application 08/530,434                                 
                                  ________________                                    
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                  ________________                                    
          Before JERRY SMITH, GROSS and BARRY, Administrative Patent                  
          Judges.                                                                     
          JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.                                   


                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
                                                                                     
          This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134                      
          from the examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-33 and 35.  Claim           
          34 was indicated by the examiner to be allowable.  In response to           
          the filing of appellants’ appeal brief, the examiner withdrew the           
          rejection of claims 28-30 and 35 [answer, page 2].  Therefore,              
          this appeal is directed to the rejection of claims 1-27 and 31-             
          33.                                                                         

                                         -1-                                          





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007