Wojciak v. Nishiyama

_______________
_______________
_______________
_______________
The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper 72
Filed by: 	Trial Section Motions Panel
Box Interference 	Entered
Washington, D.C. 	20231 	4 June 2001
Tel: 	703-308-9797
Fax: 	703-305-0942
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
STAN WOJCIAK
Junior Party,
(Patent 5,922,783),
v.
YUKO NISHIYAMA and HIROYUKI MIKUNI
Senior Party
(Application 08/730,025).
Patent Interference No. 104,539 (McK)
Before: 	McKELVEY, Senior Administrative Patent Judge, and
SCHAFER and MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKELVEY, Senior Administrative Patent Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
(Decision on Wojciak motion to suppress evidence)
WOJCIAK MOTION 1 TO SUPPRESS (Paper 63) seeks to suppress,
i.e., objects to the admissibility of, certain portions of
DECLARATION 1 OF YUKO NISHIYAMA (Ex 1006) dated 30 November 2000
(Ex 1006, page 13).

A. 	Findings of fact
1. 	There came a time in the interference when Wojciak
filed Wojciak Preliminary Motion 1 (Paper 21) alleging
unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of certain claims of the
Nishiyama application (Ex 1001) involved in the interference.
2. 	In due course, Nishiyama timely filed an
opposition (Paper 41).
3. 	In support of its opposition, Nishiyama relies on
DECLARATION 1 OF YUKO NISHIYAMA (Ex 1006) (hereinafter "Nishiyama
declaration").
4. 	Yuko Nishiyama is a named inventor along with
Hiroyuki Mikuni in the Nishiyama application (Ex 1001) involved
in the interference.
5. 	The specification of the Nishiyama application
contains, inter alia:
(1) 	EXAMPLES 1 TO 11 (Ex 1001, page 40).
(2) 	COMPARATIVE EXAMPLES 1 TO 13 (Ex 1001,
pages 40 and 41), results of which are
summarized in a TABLE 1 (Ex 1001, page 42).
(3) 	COMPARATIVE EXAMPLES 12-14 (Ex 1001,
page 43), results of which are summarized
in TABLE 2 (Ex 1001, page 44).
(4) 	EXAMPLES 32-37 (Ex 1001, pages 46-47),
results of which are summarized in TABLE 5
(Ex 1001, page 47).
(5) 	EXAMPLES 54-57 AND 59-64 (Ex 1001, page 51),
results of which are summarized in TABLE 9
(Ex 1001, page 52).
(6) 	EXAMPLES 77-81 (Ex 1001, page 54), results
of which are summarized in TABLE 11 (Ex 1001,
page 54).

(7) 	Examples 92-93 (Ex 1001, page 56), results of
which are summarized in TABLE 14 (Ex 1001,
page 56).
6. 	In opposing Wojciak's unpatentability assertions,
Nishiyama relies on the Nishiyama declaration to establish the
truth of certain scientific experiments and data generated
therefrom. 	See, e.g., ¶¶ 13-15, 15a, 15b, 17-18, 21, 21a
and 22-23 of the Nishiyama declaration.
7. 	With respect to experimental work said to be
reproduced in the Nishiyama specification as the examples and
tables mentioned above, Yuko Nishiyama testifies (Ex 1006,
unnumbered page 1) (bracketed matter added):
The following experiments which were conducted [1] by
me or [2] under my supervision or [3] by my coinventor or
[4] under his [i.e., Mikuni's] supervision are disclosed
[i.e., described,] in the Nishiyama and Mikuni application
no. 08/730,025; the Examples referenced [in the Nishiyama
declaration] are those of the involved Nishiyama and Mikuni
application 08/730,025.
8. 	Wojciak timely filed WOJCIAK OBJECTION (1)
objecting to the admissibility of ¶¶ 13-15, 15a, 15b, 17-18, 21,
21a and 22-23 (hereinafter "objected to paragraphs") of the
Nishiyama declaration.
9. 	A copy of WOJCIAK OBJECTION (1)1 accompanied
WOJCIAK MOTION 1 TO SUPPRESS.
WOJCIAK OBJECTION (1) should have been assigned an exhibit number.
Wojciak's failure to assign an exhibit, however, is not prejudicial to Nishiyama
given that the objection accompanied Wojciak's motion. 	In the future, a party
should assign an exhibit number to a previously served, but not filed, objection
when the objection accompanies a motion to suppress.

10. 	In WOJCIAK OBJECTION (1), Wojciak raised the
following grounds to the admissibility of the objected to
paragraphs:
(1) 	The testimony is irrelevant (Fed. R. Evid.
402) because the underlying evidence is not
prior art, and accordingly to Wojciak, can
have no bearing on what a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have known.
(2) 	The testimony is hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 802)
and Nishiyama has not established that any
exception to the hearsay rule should apply.
(3) 	As to the experimental work described by Yuko
Nishiyama in the objected to paragraphs,
Nishiyama has not complied with ¶ 43 of the
NOTICE DECLARING INTERFERENCE.2
11. 	Wojciak also objected to the admissibility of ¶ 34
of the Nishiyama declaration, but that objection was not renewed
in WOJCIAK MOTION 1 TO SUPPRESS.
12. 	As was its right, Nishiyama elected not to
supplement the Nishiyama declaration. 	37 CFR § 1.672(c); NOTICE
DECLARING INTERFERENCE, ¶ 34 (Paper 1, page 28).
¶ 43. 	Reliance on scientific tests and data
Parties often rely on scientific tests and data, both in the preliminary
motion phase and during the priority testimony phase. 	Examples include IR
(infra-red spectroscopy) and graphs generated therefrom, HPLC (high performance
liquid chromatography) and data generated therefrom, etc. 	In the event a party
relies on a scientific test or data generated from a scientific test, the party
relying on the test or data shall explain:
a. 	the reason why the test is being used and why the data is
being relied upon;
b. 	how the test is performed;
c. 	how the data is generated using the test;
d. 	how the data is used to determine a value;
e. 	the acknowledged accuracy of the test; and
f. 	any other information which the party believes would aid the
board in understanding the significance of the test and/or data.
The explanation desirably takes place through an affidavit testimony of a
witness, preferably accompanied by references to relevant pages of standard texts
(which should be exhibits in the interference).

13. 	In due course, Yuko Nishiyama was cross-examined
(Ex 1015).3
14. 	In connection with the Wojciak motion to suppress,
the following, and only the following, portions of the cross-
examination of Yuko Nishiyama have been called to our attention
by Nishiyama (Paper 41, pages 2 and 5), viz., "page 68, line 1
through page 72, line 19, especially page 68, lines 9-16."
15. 	Cross-examination specifically relied upon by
Nishiyama reveals the following testimony by Yuko Nishiyama
(Ex 1015, page 68, lines 9-16):
A. 	[by Yuko Nishiyama]. 	When you say other
people, are you asking me about other people
who conducted these tests?
Q. 	[by Robert H. Fischer, Esq., counsel for
Wojciak]. 	Yes.
A. 	There are no other people who conducted these
tests.
Q. 	You conducted all the tests?
A. 	I conducted all so far as the data that are
listed in the specification.
16. 	Further cross-examination reveals (Ex 1015,
page 68, line 17 through page 69, line 23):
Q. 	Could you please turn to Exhibit 1006 which
is Declaration 1 of Yuko Nishiyama [i.e., the
Nishiyama declaration,] and I would direct
your attention to paragraph 5 which states:
"The following experiments which were
conducted by me or under my supervision
During cross-examination, Yuko Nishiyama testified through Shozo Otani, a
Japanese-English interpreter (Ex 1015, pages 5 through 14).

or by my co-inventor or under his
supervision are disclosed in *** [the]
Nishiyama *** application ****."
Do you see that?
A. 	Yes.
Q. 	What were the tests that were conducted by
Mr. Mikuni?
A. 	Tests were conducted prior to those which
were cited in the specification and those
test[s] Mr. Mikuni conducted or as to these
tests the -- under Mr. Mikuni's supervision
as my co-inventor the tests were conducted.
Q. 	What tests were conducted under Mr. Mikuni's
supervision?
A. 	The testing procedures which are described in
the specification were the tests which were
conducted as exchange were made between me
and Mr. Mikuni as my co-inventor.
Q. 	Where there not other people involved in
addition to you and Mr. Mikuni in these
tests? 	Isn't that exactly what paragraph 5
of your declaration Exhibit 1006 says, sir?
A. 	I believe that during the preparation of
samples, I had assistants to the extent that
turning on and off of the stirrer.
Q. 	And Mr. Mikuni he also had assistants in
turning on and off the stirrer, sir?
A. 	Such thing may have happened.
17. 	Still further cross-examination reveals (Ex 1015,
page 71, line 14 through page 72, line 1 and page 72,
lines 9-25):
Q. 	An for each of those tests, if it wasn't
cured as it came off the conveyor belt, you
walked over, took it off the conveyor belt

and put it back on the entry to the conveyor
belt, correct?
A. 	Yes.
Q. 	Mr. Mikuni, did not do that for any sample,
is that your testimony?
A. 	I do not have a clear recollection of that
but he may have conducted a test to verify
what I did and -- strike that.
I do not have a clear recollection of that
but he may have conducted in the manner to
verify what I did.
* * * * *
Q. 	Did Mr. Mikuni have any involvement in those
comparative examples or did you run all those
alone also?
A. 	Since it goes way back, I do not have an
accurate recollection but there may have been
instruction[s] which were given to me to
conduct such comparative tests.
Q. 	And there may have been instructions given
either by you or Mr. Mikuni to people under
your supervision, correct?
A. 	Yes.
* * * * *
Q. 	Now how were the test results recorded?
A. 	The test results were entered into lab notes.
Q. 	Where these lab notes loose or were they kept
as lab notebooks?
A. 	It was in the form of one notebook.
18. 	In its opposition, and based on the above-noted
cross-examination, Nishiyama maintains that the objected to
paragraphs are not hearsay because Yuko Nishiyama "personally
carried out all tests reported in his declaration" (Paper 41,
page 5, last ¶).

19. 	Nishiyama also maintains that even if the data is
hearsay, it is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule as
"data *** kept in the course of regularly conducted business
activity, as evidenced by the Nishiyama involved patent
application" (Paper 41, pages 5-6). 	See Fed. R. Evid. 803(6).
B. 	Discussion
1. 	Wojciak's objection based on relevance
As we understand it, Wojciak maintains that the data in the
specification of the Nishiyama specification is not prior art and
therefore cannot be relevant on the issue of what one skilled in
the art could have known.
We believe Wojciak has completely missed a significant
point.
Relevant evidence is any evidence having any tendency to
make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of an interference more probable or less probable
than it would be without the evidence. 	Fed. R. Evid. 401. 	An
unexpected result obtained with an invention vis-a-vis a result
obtained with the prior art is a fact that is of consequence on
an issue of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 	The data
presented in the specification is offered, inter alia, to prove
unexpected results.
Moreover, if Wojciak were correct, then the claimed
invention being compared with the "prior art" could never be
novel because the comparative testing would have to be described
in the prior art! 	No citation of precedent is required to
establish, as a matter of law, that evidence of comparative

testing to demonstrate an unexpected result is manifestly
relevant on the legal issue of obviousness apart from the time
when comparative testing occurred.
Wojciak's objection based on relevance is overruled.
2. 	Wojciak's objection based on hearsay
Wojciak's objection based on hearsay presents a different
question.
In an interference, data based on experiments described in a
specification of an involved patent or application is not
admissible per se to establish that the experiments, in fact,
were carried out as described, or that data generated as a
consequence of the experiments (i.e., a particular result), in
fact, was obtained as described. 	All parties to an interference
are given notice of the hearsay nature of statements in a
specification in ¶ 41 of the NOTICE DECLARING INTERFERENCE
(Paper 1). 	Paragraph 41 states:
A specification of an application or patent
involved in the interference is admissible as evidence
only to prove what the specification or patent
describes. 	If there is data in the specification upon
which a party intends to rely to prove the truth of the
data, an affidavit by an individual having first-hand
knowledge of how the data was generated (i.e., the
individual who performed an experiment reported as an
example in the specification) must be filed.
The individual will be subject to cross-
examination.
Apparently taking heed of ¶ 41, Nishiyama presented the
Nishiyama declaration to establish through a witness the "truth"

of the experiments and data generated therefrom, all said to be
described in the specification of the Nishiyama application
involved in the interference.
In his declaration testimony, Yuko Nishiyama states that the
experiments reported in the specification of the Nishiyama
application involved in the interference "were conducted [1] by
me or [2] under my supervision or [3] by my coinventor[4] or [4]
under his supervision" (bracketed matter added). 	We are not
concerned so much with the "under my supervision" or "under his
supervision" portion of Yuko Nishiyama's testimony. 	Rather, our
concern is with that portion of his testimony which plainly seems
to indicate that his coinventor "conducted" "experiments reported
in the specification ***." 	Based on the declaration testimony of
Yuko Nishiyama, it has not been established which experiments
were conducted by or under the supervision of Yuko Nishiyama and
which were conducted by or under the supervision of Hiroyuki
Mikuni.
During cross-examination, a different version of who
conducted the experiments begins to surface. 	Based on cross-
examination, Nishiyama, through Yuko Nishiyama, would now have us
believe that only he, and "no other people *** conducted these
tests" (Ex 1015, page 68, lines 12-13). 	At the same time, Yuko
Nishiyama acknowledges that he may not have an "accurate
recollection" given that "it goes way back ***."
As a first step in our determination, we undertake to access
the credibility of the testimony of Yuko Nishiyama with respect
4 	Yuko Nishiyama's coinventor (Hiroyuki Mikuni) did not testify.

to whether he or he and his coinventor "conducted" tests
described in the Nishiyama specification and Nishiyama
declaration. 	There is a conflict between the testimony in the
Nishiyama declaration and the Nishiyama cross-examination.
Furthermore, Yuko Nishiyama has conceded that he had some
difficulty with his recollection. 	Under these circumstances, and
while the matter may not be free from doubt, we find that
Nishiyama has not convincingly established that Yuko Nishiyama
personally conducted all the experiments described in the
Nishiyama specification and Nishiyama declaration. 	If he
conducted some of the experiments, his testimony fails to
convincingly establish which experiments he personally conducted.
Counsel for Wojciak attempted to clarify the conflict during
cross-examination. 	However, Yuko Nishiyama's attempts to
reconcile the conflict between his declaration testimony and his
cross-examination (quoted above) are unintelligible and
unsatisfactory. 	After Wojciak filed its objection, and after the
above-noted cross-examination of Yuko Nishiyama, counsel for
Nishiyama (1) at the cross-examination deposition should have
recognized the conflict between the declaration and cross-
examination testimony, and the unclear manner in which Yuko
Nishiyama attempted to reconcile the conflict, and (2) should
have taken steps to have Yuko Nishiyama clarify the matter, if he
could. 	Alternatively, given the declaration testimony and the
Wojciak objection, and prior to cross-examination, Nishiyama had
an opportunity to file, and could have filed, supplemental
declarations of Yuko Nishiyama, Hiroyuki Mikuni, both and/or

perhaps even others, to establish the facts surrounding who
conducted the experimental work.
Lacking from the record is sufficient credible testimony to
permit us to accurately determine, as a matter of fact, who
conducted what experiment. 	Likewise lacking from the record is
sufficient testimony to permit us to reconcile the conflict in
the testimony of Yuko Nishiyama. 	Accordingly, we decline to find
that Yuko Nishiyama conducted all, or even some (and if so,
which) of the experiments upon which Nishiyama seeks to rely.
Accordingly, we agree with Wojciak that the objected to
paragraphs of the Nishiyama declaration are hearsay to the extent
they seek to establish that, in fact, the experiments were
conducted, as described, and that, in fact, the resulting data
was obtained, as described. 	Cf. In the Matter of James Wilson
Associates, 965 F.2d 160, 173 (7th Cir. 1992):
*** the judge must make sure that the expert isn't
being used as a vehicle for circumventing the rules of
evidence.
***
If for example the expert witness (call him A) bases
his opinion in part on a fact (call it X) that the
party's lawyer told him, the lawyer cannot in closing
argument tell the jury, "See, we proved X through our
expert witness, A."
3. 	Record of a regularly conducted activity
Nishiyama maintains that the objected to paragraphs are
admissible under the "records of regularly conducted activity"
(business record) exception to the hearsay rule. 	See Fed. R.
Evid. 803(6), which provides in relevant part:

A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation,
in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or
diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from
information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if
kept in the course of a regularly conducted business
activity, and if it was the regular practice of that
business activity to make the memorandum, report,
record, or data compilation, all as shown by the
testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness,
unless the source of information or the method or
circumstances of preparation indicate lack of
trustworthiness.
Nishiyama, not Wojciak, has the burden of establishing that
the objected to paragraphs fall within the Rule 803(6) exception
to the hearsay rule. 	Rule 803(6), as applied to the facts of
this case, boils down to the following:
A [1] *** report *** or data compilation, in any
form, of [2] acts, events, conditions, opinions, or
diagnoses, [3] made at or near the time by, or [4] from
information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if
[5] kept in the course of a regularly conducted
business activity, and [6] if it was the regular
practice of that business activity to make the report
*** or data compilation, [7] all as shown by the
testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness,
unless [8] the source of information or the method or
circumstances of preparation indicate lack of
trustworthiness.
Nishiyama must establish each of the eight elements
necessary to invoke the Rule 803(6) exception. 	Kolmes v. World
Fibers Corp., 107 F.3d 1534, 1542-43, 41 USPQ2d 1829, 1834-35
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (World unable to establish that Rule 803(6)

exception should apply). 	It has not done so.
According to Yuko Nishiyama, experimental work is said to
have been recorded in a lab notebook. 	The notebook was not
offered in evidence, and therefore, any entry in the notebook
cannot be compared with material described in the Nishiyama
application involved in the interference. 	There is no credible
evidence that all relevant information in the lab notebook found
its way into the Nishiyama specification. 	Nor is it clear who
recorded any information in the lab notebook or to whom the lab
notebook was assigned. 	Moreover, as we have already found, it is
not clear on this record who performed each of the experiments
embodied in the examples discussed in the objected to paragraphs.
Hence, Nishiyama has failed to establish factually that Yuko
Nishiyama is a "person with knowledge" within the meaning of Rule
803(6) of all the information proffered in the objected to
paragraphs of the Nishiyama declaration.
Apart from the fact Nishiyama has not established Yuko
Nishiyama's personal knowledge, we have some doubt as to whether
experimental work of the type discussed in the Nishiyama
specification and Nishiyama declaration is "a regularly conducted
business activity" within the meaning of Rule 803(6). 	It is safe
to assume that research per se is a regularly conducted activity
in the sense that many corporations carry on research activity.
Records associated with the names of research personnel employed
by a corporation, time and attendance records related to research
activity, financial information (e.g., purchase orders), and the
like, are the type of record which might be shown to be kept in

the course of a regularly conducted business activity. 	However,
on this record, a laboratory notebook recording a specific
experiment has not been shown to be "a regularly conducted
business activity" within the meaning of Rule 803(6).5
Experiments of the type described in the Nishiyama application
and Nishiyama declaration are normally unique one-time events,
i.e., events leading to the making of a patentable invention.
The experiments are not the same, for instance, as records
generated by operating a chemical plant (e.g., recording a
condition in the plant such as a temperature at a particular
location at regular time intervals). 	Moreover, (1) even if a
laboratory notebook recording a unique one-time event, or data
copied therefrom could be considered a record of "a regularly
conducted business activity," where (2) the individual who
participated in the events recorded in the notebook is available
to testify, we probably would be inclined to exercise our
discretion to require the testimony of that individual,
particularly in light of 37 CFR § 1.671(f). 	See Fed. R. Evid.
403 (relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
substantially outweighed, inter alia, by danger of unfair
prejudice or confusion of issues). 	Our experience establishes
that laboratory notebook entries often are not self-explanatory
and for that reason Rule 671(f) provides that the significance of
documentary and other exhibits identified by a witness shall be
5 	Cf. Alpert v. Slatin, 305 F.2d 891, 895-96, 134 USPQ 296, 300 (CCPA
1962) (declining to apply the former Federal Shop Book rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1732,
which is not as liberal as Rule 803(6)).

discussed with particularity by the witness.6 	And, as applied to
laboratory notebooks or information copied therefrom, the
discussion generally should take place through the testimony of
the individual who recorded information in the notebook. 	In the
case before us, neither the notebooks nor testimony of an
individual credibly shown to have first-hand knowledge with
respect thereto has been offered in evidence.
4. 	Initial objection based on ¶ 43 of the NOTICE DECLARING
INTERFERENCE
WOJCIAK OBJECTION (1) included an objection to the
admissibility of the objected to paragraphs based on an alleged
failure of Nishiyama to comply with ¶ 43 of the NOTICE DECLARING
INTERFERENCE. 	See Finding 10(3), supra. 	The objection was not
renewed in WOJCIAK MOTION 1 TO SUPPRESS. 	Accordingly, the
objection is waived.
Nevertheless, we take this opportunity to note that a
failure to comply with ¶ 43 of the NOTICE DECLARING INTERFERENCE,
now ¶ 43 of the Trial Section's STANDING ORDER, is not a basis
for objecting to the admissibility of evidence. 	Rather, a
failure of a party to comply with ¶ 43 goes to the weight to be
6 	See also Notice of Final Rule, Patent Interference Proceedings, 49
Fed. Reg. 48416, 48427-28 (Dec. 12, 1984):
Under § 1.671(f), the significance of documentary and other exhibits must
be discussed with particularity by a witness during oral deposition or in
an affidavit. 	Section 1.671(f) sets out in the regulations an evidentiary
requirement imposed by precedent. 	See Popoff v. Orchin, 144 USPQ 762 (Bd.
Pat. Int. 1963) (unexplained experimental data should not be considered);
Chandler v. Mock, 150 F.2d 563, 66 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1945) (records standing
alone were held to be meaningless), and Smith v. Bousquet, 111 F.2d 157, 45
USPQ 347 (CCPA 1940) (unexplained tests in stipulated testimony are
entitled to little weight). 	See also In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 184
USPQ 29 (CCPA 1974) and Triplett v. Steinmayer, 129 F.2d 869, 54 USPQ 409
(CCPA 1942).

given testimony relying on scientific tests and data. 	A failure
to explain scientific tests and data in the manner required by
¶ 43 more than likely will lead to the board according little, if
any, weight to scientific tests and data.
5. 	Conclusion
We exercise our discretion to sustain Wojciak's objection to
the admissibility of the objected to paragraphs of the Nishiyama
declaration to the extent that they are offered to prove the
truth of statements made therein.
In sustaining the objection, we recognize that generally an
administrative agency is not bound strictly by the rules of
evidence. 	In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1565, 31 USPQ2d 1817,
1821 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 	Indeed, in ex parte patent prosecution
hearsay may properly be considered. 	See, e.g., In re Reuter, 670
F.2d 1015, 1020-21, 210 USPQ 249, 254-55 (CCPA 1981). 	However,
in inter partes interference proceedings, the Federal Rules of
Evidence apply (37 CFR § 1.671(b)), and those rules authorize the
board to exercise its discretion to sustain an objection to the
admissibility of evidence based on hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 802).
In re Epstein, supra.
C. 	Order
Upon consideration of WOJCIAK MOTION 1 TO SUPPRESS
(Paper 63), and for the reasons given, it is
ORDERED that the motion is granted to the extent that
Wojciak's objection to the admissibility of ¶¶ 13-15, 15a, 15b,
17-18, 21, 21a and 22-23 of the Nishiyama declaration (Ex 1006)

is sustained to the extent that they are offered to prove the
truth of statements made therein. 	Fed. R. Evid. 802; In the
Matter of James Wilson Associates, 965 F.2d 160, 173 (7th Cir.
1992).
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied.
______________________________)
FRED E. McKELVEY, Senior 	)
Administrative Patent Judge 	)
)
)
______________________________)
RICHARD E. SCHAFER 	) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge 	) 	APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
______________________________)
SALLY C. MEDLEY 	)
Administrative Patent Judge 	)

104,539
cc (via Federal Express)
Practitioner for Wojciak
(real party in interest
Loctite Corporation):
Lawrence S. Perry, Esq.
Anthony M. Zupcic, Esq.
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 	10112
Tel: 	212-218-2100
Fax: 	212-218-2200
E-mail:
E-mail: lperry@fchs.com
azupcic@fchs.com
Practitioner for Nishiyama
(real party in interest
Three Bond Co., Ltd):
Louis Gubinsky, Esq.
Brett S. Sylvester, Esq.
SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS, PLLC
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 	20037-3202
Tel: 	202-293-0760
Fax: 	202-293-7860
E-mail: 	lgubinsky@sughrue.com
E-mail: 	bsylvester@sughrue.com