Ex Parte Pandya - 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                          for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 AROOPRATAN D. PANDYA                                                
                                                ______________                                                  
                                              Appeal 2007-0760                                                  
                                           Application 09/974,373                                               
                                           Technology Center 2100                                               
                                                ____________                                                    
                                            Decided: June 6, 2007                                               
                                                ____________                                                    

                Before JOHN C. MARTIN, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JAY P. LUCAS,                                        
                Administrative Patent Judges.                                                                   
                HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                            


                                          DECISION ON APPEAL                                                    
                                        STATEMENT OF THE CASE                                                   
                Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C.  134 from the Examiner’s Final                               
                Rejection of claims 1 through 32.  We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.                         
                 6(b) to decide this appeal.                                                                   
                       Appellant invented a method and system for monitoring a client (150,                     
                155) real-time activity on a server website (110) in a disconnected                             




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

Last modified: September 9, 2013