Ex Parte Dunn 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                       for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.                     


                           UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                  
                                             ____________                                             
                               BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                     
                                          AND INTERFERENCES                                           
                                             ____________                                             
                                     Ex parte MATTHEW W. DUNN                                         
                                        and DANIEL J. SHOFF                                           
                                             ___________                                              
                                        Appeal No. 2006-0360                                          
                                    Application No. 10/388,691                                        
                                             ____________                                             
                                               ON BRIEF                                               
                                             ____________                                             


            Before KRASS, BARRETT, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent                             
            Judges.                                                                                   
            KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                       


                                         DECISION ON APPEAL                                           

                  This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of                            
            claims 25-30.                                                                             

                  The invention pertains to video-on-demand (VOD) type systems,                       
            but, more than a VOD system, wherein a viewer can order video                             




Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007