Ex Parte Hirota 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              written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.    
                     UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                      
                                    ___________                                     
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                         
                                 AND INTERFERENCES                                  
                                    ___________                                     
                      Ex parte  TOMOO HIROTA, YOSUKE MIYAZAKI                       
                              and MASAAKI TSUTSUBUCHI                               
                                   ____________                                     
                                Appeal No. 2006-1014                                
                             Application No. 10/255,081                             
                                   _____________                                    
                                      ON BRIEF                                      
                                   _____________                                    

         Before GARRIS, PAK and TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.                 
         GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                       

                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                 
              This is a decision on an appeal, which involves claims 1-4            
         and 7-9.1                                                                  
              We AFFIRM.                                                            
              The invention relates to an impact energy-absorbing                   
         component in the passenger compartment of an automobile.                   
         (Specification, page 1, lines 5-6).                                        

                                                                                   
         1 The Examiner objected to claims 5-6 as being allowable except for their  
         dependence upon a rejected base claim.                                     




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007