1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
2 for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board
3
4 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
5 ____________________
6
7 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
8 AND INTERFERENCES
9 ____________________
10
11 Ex parte SHUSAKU GOTO, KAORU INOUE, YUI NIWA,
12 and TOYOJI SUGIMOTO
13 ____________________
14
15 Appeal 2007-0693
16 Application 10/188,519
17 Technology Center 1700
18 ____________________
19
20 Decided: May 24, 2007
21 ____________________
22
23 Before: TEDDY S. GRON, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and MICHAEL P.
24 TIERNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
25
26 DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
27
28
29 DECISION ON APPEAL
30
31 STATEMENT OF CASE
32 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2006) from a final rejection
33 of claims 1-20. (Final Office action entered June 9, 2005.) We have
34 jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2006).
35 Applicants state that they invented “a non-aqueous electrolyte
36 secondary battery, a negative electrode therefor, and [a] method of
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013