The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding precedent of the
Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte LEONARD H. BIEMAN
_______________
Appeal 2004-0659
Application 09/111,9781
Technology Center 2800
_______________
ORAL HEARING: June 27, 2006
_______________
Before GARRIS, JERRY SMITH, RUGGIERO, GROSS, and MacDONALD,
Administrative Patent Judges.2
PER CURIAM
DECISION ON APPEAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 134
AFFIRMED
A. INTRODUCTION
1. This is in response to Appellant’s Request for Rehearing3 of a
Decision on Appeal (the decision) of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the
1 Application filed July 8, 1998, seeking to reissue U.S. Patent 5,646,733, issued July 8,
1997, based on application 08/593,095, filed January 29, 1996. The real party in interest
is PPT Vision, Inc., Amended Appeal Brief (filed March 17, 2003), page 4.
2 Administrative Patent Judges Jerry Smith, Ruggiero, and Gross originally heard the
appeal and entered a decision on March 31, 2005. Subsequent to Appellant’s Request for
Rehearing (the request) filed May 31, 2005, the panel was expanded to include
Administrative Patent Judges Garris and MacDonald. Appellant was offered, and
accepted, an opportunity for additional oral argument.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007