1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
2 for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board
3
4 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
5 ____________________
6
7 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
8 AND INTERFERENCES
9 ____________________
10
11 Ex parte DAN EDWARD CURTIS, DOREEN LYNN GALLI, and
12 CHRYSTINE MARIE RAHEB
13 ____________________
14
15 Appeal 2006-2085
16 Application 09/810,629
17 Technology Center 3600
18 ____________________
19
20 Decided: March 22, 2007
21 ____________________
22
23 Before STUART S. LEVY, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
24 ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
25
26 LEVY, Administrative Patent Judge.
27
28
29 DECISION ON APPEAL
30
31 STATEMENT OF CASE
32 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection
33 of claims 1-42. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
34 Appellants invented a method for characterizing a service provider
35 such as an application service provider (ASP) or an Internet service provider
36 (ISP). (Specification 2).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013