The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte GENNARO A. CUOMO, BINH Q. NGUYEN, and RICHARD J. REDPATH
____________
Appeal No. 2003-0509
Application No. 08/657,510
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before RUGGIERO, GROSS, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A patent examiner rejected claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-19. The appellants appeal
therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1 We affirm-in-part.
BACKGROUND
The invention at issue on appeal is a visual programming environment for
developing a computer software application. (Spec. at 32.) According to the appellants,
the "difficulty of use associated with . . . software" has been a drawback for developers
1The appellants also attempt to appeal the examiner's objection to claim 6.
(Appeal Br. at 2.) Rather than by appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences ("Board"), however, such an issue is to be settled by petition to the
Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). See In re Hengehold, 440
F.2d 1395, 1403, 169 USPQ 473, 479 (CCPA 1971).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007