The opinion in support of the remand being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 33
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte HIROYUKI SHIGEMATSU, YUTAKA NAKAMURA,
MUNENORI SAKAMOTO, HIROYUKI NAGASAWA, HIROSHI NAKAO,
YASUHIRO NAKAJIMA, and MASAAKI KURATA
____________
Appeal No. 2004-1026
Application No. 09/028,480
____________
HEARD: Jan. 11, 2005
____________
Before THOMAS, BARRY, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A patent examiner rejected claims 9, 19, and 23-33. The appellants appeal only
the rejection of claims 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). (Supp. Reply Br.1 at 2.) We
affirm.
1Because the Supplemental Reply Brief "contains all arguments that are made on
appeal by appellant including claim groupings and the like," (Supp. Reply Br. at 1), no
other briefs were considered in deciding this appeal.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007