THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 30
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MASAFUMI KAMIYAMA,
HARUHIKO YANO , MINORU TSUCHIDA1
and EIJI O’SHIMA
____________
Appeal No. 1996-0584
Application No. 07/658,8782
____________
HEARD: November 1, 1999
____________
Before KIMLIN, WARREN, and SPIEGEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
SPIEGEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner's final rejection of claims
1 through 8, 19 through 25, 27 and 29-33. Claims 12 through 18, the only other claims
1 Appellants should review the second inventor’s name for accuracy because, according to related
Application 07/840,181 which is a divisional of this application, the second inventor’s name is YANO HARUHIKO,
Haruhiko being the family name.
2Application for patent filed February 22, 1991.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007