Ex Parte Masui et al - Page 1



                        The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is                        
                                    not binding precedent of the Board.                                      

                        UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                            
                                               ____________                                                  
                             BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                              
                                         AND INTERFERENCES                                                   
                                               ____________                                                  
                Ex parte ICHIRO MASUI, KATSUNORI OGAWA, and KENICHI SAKAI                                    
                                               ____________                                                  
                                             Appeal 2007-1705                                                
                                          Application 10/508,629                                             
                                          Technology Center 2800                                             
                                               ____________                                                  
                                         Decided: August 23, 2007                                            
                                               ____________                                                  

                Before JAMES D. THOMAS, LEE E. BARRETT,                                                      
                and JOSEPH L. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.                                           
                THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                         


                                         DECISION ON APPEAL                                                  
                      This appeal involves claims 1 through 5, and 7.  We have jurisdiction                  
                under 35 U.S.C. §  §  6(b) and 134(a).                                                       
                      We affirm.                                                                             
                      As best representative of the disclosed and claimed invention,                         
                independent claim 1 is reproduced below:                                                     





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013