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2 for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board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 STEPHEN P. CRAWFORD, STEPHANIE EVANICK,
12 BRYAN SEYFRIED, MARK DILWORTH, PETER STOCKMAN,
13 and MICHAEL R. SUTCLIFF
14 ____________________
15
16 Appeal 2006-2429
17 Application 09/999,5801
18 Technology Center 3600
19 ____________________
20
21 Decided: May 30, 2007
22 ____________________
23
24 Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, STUART S. LEVY, and ANTON W.
25 FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
26
27 LEVY, Administrative Patent Judge.
28
29
30 DECISION ON APPEAL
31
32 STATEMENT OF CASE
33 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection
34 of claims 1 to 232. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
1 Application filed October 21, 2001. The Real Party in Interest is
Accenture L.L.P.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013