Ex Parte Nakada et al - 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          not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the             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.                                                                      
                                                            Paper No. 22              

                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                     __________                                       
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                     __________                                       
                   Ex parte KAZUYA NAKADA and YOSHINORI TAKAHASHI                     
                                     __________                                       
                                Appeal No. 2004-0375                                  
                               Application 09/841,926                                 
                                     ___________                                      
                                HEARD: APRIL 15, 2004                                 
                                     ___________                                      
          Before KIMLIN, OWENS and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent            
          Judges.                                                                     
          OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         


                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This appeal is from a nonfinal rejection of claims 1 and 2,            
          which are all of the claims in the application.1                            
                                    THE INVENTION                                     
               The appellants claim a semiconductive roller which, the                
          appellants state, is useful as a charging roller, developing                

               1 In an appeal in which claims have been at least twice                
          rejected, the board has jurisdiction as discussed in Ex parte               
          Lemoine, 46 USPQ2d 1432 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1995).                        
                                          1                                           





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007