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not binding precedent of the Board.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. 31
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MASAFUMI KAMIYAMA, YANO HARUHIKO, 1
MINORU TSUCHIDA and EIJI O’SHIMA
____________
Appeal No. 1996-2015
Application No. 08/181,5392
____________
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
20 through 22 and 24 through 33, which are all of the claims pending in this application.
1According to the request for a corrected filing receipt filed April 13, 1992 (Paper No. 3) in parent
Application 07/840,181, the second inventor’s name is YANO HARUHIKO, Haruhiko is the family name. The
request has been annotated to indicate that a corrected filing receipt was processed May 8, 1992. However, the
correction has not been physically entered in the file record . This clerical processing oversight should be corrected
upon return of the ‘539 application to the jurisdiction of the examiner.
2Application for patent filed December 27, 1993. According to appellants, this application is a continuation
of Application 07/840,181, filed February 24, 1992, now abandoned, which is a divisional of Application 07/658,878,
filed February 21, 1991.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007