Ex Parte D'ADDARIO et al - Page 1




          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          for publication in a law journal;   and (2) is not binding precedent of the  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 14           
                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                        
                                     ____________                                      

                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                    
                                     ____________                                      
                    Ex parte JAMES D’ADDARIO and STEVEN T. MURRAY                      
                                     ____________                                      
                                   Appeal 2001-1527                                    
                               Application 08/753,2651                                 
                                     ____________                                      
                                       ON BRIEF                                        
                                     ____________                                      
          Before: KIMLIN, DELMENDO, and NAGUMO, Administrative Patent                  
          Judges.                                                                      
          NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         

                       Decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134                        
               The appeal is from a decision of a primary examiner                     
          rejecting claims 1 through 5 and 17 through 19.  Claims 6 through            
          16 have been withdrawn from consideration by the examiner as                 
          being drawn to a non-elected invention.  (Paper No. 5 at 2.)  We             
          reverse.                                                                     




               1  Application for patent filed November 22, 1996.  According to Appellants, the real party in interest is
          Innovative Automation, Inc., of New York.  (Brief at 3.)                     





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007