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2 for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board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 VLADIMIR DUNAEVSKY
12 ____________________
13
14 Appeal 2006-2748
15 Application 10/123,268
16 Technology Center 3700
17 ____________________
18
19 Decided: July 16, 2007
20 ____________________
21
22 Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JENNIFER D. BAHR and
23 STUART S. LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
24
25 CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
26
27
28 DECISION ON APPEAL
29
30 STATEMENT OF CASE
31 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection
32 of claims 1, 2, 4, 8 to 11, 13, 14, 16, 20 to 23, 26, 27, 29, 33 to 36 and 38.
33 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
34 Appellant invented a gaming device and method in which the results
35 of the game are displayed on adjacent concentric rings that are concurrently
36 displayed on a single video monitor (Specification 1).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013