Ex Parte Sakai - 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                          for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board                            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 MASUMI SAKAI                                                 
                                          ____________________                                                 
                                              Appeal 2006-2381                                                 
                                           Application 09/779,125                                              
                                          Technology Center 2800                                               
                                          ____________________                                                 
                                          Decided:  March 13, 2007                                             
                                          ____________________                                                 
                Before:  HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, and                                        
                JEAN R. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                  
                MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                        

                                          DECISION ON APPEAL                                                   

                                       STATEMENT OF THE CASE                                                   
                      Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection                    
                of claims 12, 13, 15, and 16.  We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)                     
                (2002).                                                                                        
                      Appellant invented a furnace-type atomic absorption                                      
                spectrophotometer that heats a sample held in an electrically-conductive tube                  
                by controlling a heating current passed to the tube.  After atomizing the                      




Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013