Ex Parte Matsuno et al - Page 1



                            This opinion is not binding precedent of the Board.                           
                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                          
                                             ____________                                                 
                            BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                            
                                        AND INTERFERENCES                                                 
                                             ____________                                                 
                         Ex parte MITSUBISHI DENKI KABUSHIKI KAISHA                                       
                                             ____________                                                 
                                           Appeal 2007-2483                                               
                                         Application 09/899,183                                           
                                        Technology Center 1700                                            
                                             ____________                                                 
                                      Decided: September 12, 2007                                         
                                             ____________                                                 
               Before RICHARD E. SCHAFER, RICHARD TORCZON, and SALLY C.                                   
               MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                      
               TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                      

                                        DECISION ON APPEAL                                                
                     The subject matter of the claims on appeal relates to a vaporizing                   
               device used for chemical vapor deposition (CVD) materials or an apparatus                  
               employing such a device.1  All of the pending claims have been rejected as                 
               unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103.  The appellant (Mitsubishi) seeks review                 
               of the rejections.  We affirm.                                                             


                                                                                                         
               1 Specification (Spec.) 1:2-6.                                                             



Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013