onecle

Ex Parte Sketch - 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                            for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.                
                    UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                         
                                             __________                                               
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                          
                                      AND INTERFERENCES                                               
                                             __________                                               
                                 Ex parte EDWARD ALUN SKETCH                                          
                                             __________                                               
                                          Appeal 2007-0384                                            
                                       Application 09/681,784                                         
                                      Technology Center 3600                                          
                                             __________                                               
                                             ON BRIEF                                                 
                                             __________                                               
               Before GRIMES, GREEN, and LINCK, Administrative Patent Judges.                         
               GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                   


                                      DECISION ON APPEAL                                              
                    This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C.  134 involving claims to a method              
               or system for reducing a functional competency gap.  The Examiner has                  
               rejected the claims as obvious.  We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.  6(b).          
               We affirm.                                                                             
                                          BACKGROUND                                                  
                    The specification describes “a method and online system for                       
               interactively assessing an employee’s level of functional competency with              
               respect to his or her employment function” or “an employment function the              




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

Last modified: September 9, 2013