Ex Parte COX et al - Page 1




              The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 15            
                        UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                              
                                                 ____________                                                  
                             BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                
                                           AND INTERFERENCES                                                   
                                                 ____________                                                  
                             Ex parte DAVID E. COX, JAMES CORVIN FLETCHER,                                     
                               DAVID BRUCE LINDQUIST, and CARL S. KESSLER                                      
                                                 ____________                                                  
                                             Appeal No. 2002-1707                                              
                                           Application No. 09/211,527                                          
                                                 ____________                                                  
                                                   ON BRIEF                                                    
                                                 ____________                                                  
             Before HAIRSTON, FLEMING, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.                                
             BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                               


                                             DECISION ON APPEAL                                                
                   A patent examiner rejected claims 2, 7, 8-13 16, 21-27, 30, 35-41, and 43-45.               
             The appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).  We reverse.                            


                                               BACKGROUND                                                      
                   The invention at issue on appeal concerns network management of a "client-                  
             server" network.  (Spec. at 1.)  In such a network, client computers ("clients") are              
             coupled to and supported by at least one server computer ("server").  Users may move              
             from location to location and need to access the network from different clients at                
             different times.  (Id. at 2.)                                                                     






Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007