Ex Parte MUNSIL 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                The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 29              
                          UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                      
                                                      ____________                                                       
                                BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                       
                                              AND INTERFERENCES                                                          
                                                      ____________                                                       
                     Ex parte WESLEY E. MUNSIL, JAMES R. LOGAN, and ALAN W. SWITZER                                      
                                                      ____________                                                       
                                                  Appeal No. 2003-0957                                                   
                                               Application No. 09/074,074                                                
                                                      ____________                                                       
                                                        ON BRIEF                                                         
                                                      ____________                                                       
              Before KRASS, BARRY, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.                                             
              BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                                        


                                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                                      
                     A patent examiner rejected claims 18-20.  The appellants appeal therefrom under                     
              35 U.S.C. § 134(a).  We reverse.                                                                           


                                                    BACKGROUND                                                           
                     The invention at issue on appeal concerns the billing of customers.  Many                           
              providers of services or products periodically generate bills for their customers.  For                    
              example, a cable television ("CATV") company may operate many CATV franchises in                           
              several geographic regions, covering millions of customers.  Each month, it sends a bill                   
              to each such customer.  (Spec. at 1.)                                                                      






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

Last modified: November 3, 2007