Ex Parte IWASAKI - 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               written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 24                
                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                     __________                                       
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                     __________                                       
                              Ex parte YASUO IWASAKI                                  
                                     __________                                       
                                Appeal No. 2001-2119                                  
                             Application No. 08/826,744                               
                                     __________                                       
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                     __________                                       

            Before THOMAS, RUGGIERO, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative                  
            Patent Judges.                                                            
            RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.                                    

                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
                 This is a decision on the appeal from the final                      
            rejection of claims 1-18.  An amendment filed January 3,                  
            2000 after final rejection, which was approved for entry by               
            the Examiner, canceled claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 17, and 18.                   
            Accordingly, only the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-6, 8,              
            9, and 12-16 is before us on appeal.                                      






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

Last modified: November 3, 2007