onecle

Ex Parte Shen - 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                         for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 BO SHEN                                                 
                                               ____________                                                  
                                             Appeal 2007-1117                                                
                                          Application 09/825,495                                             
                                          Technology Center 2100                                             
                                               ____________                                                  
                                          Decided: April 30, 2007                                            
                                               ____________                                                  

                Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JOHN A.                                      
                JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                       
                HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                       

                                         DECISION ON APPEAL                                                  
                                      STATEMENT OF THE CASE                                                  
                      Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C.  134 from the final rejection of                    
                claims 1 to 25.  We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.  6(b).                                
                      Appellant has invented a network and method for dynamically and                        
                intelligently routing a user’s requests for services via an ingress server to                






Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013