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for publication in a law journal; and (2) is not binding precedent of the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16 have been withdrawn from consideration by the examiner as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