Appeal No. 97-2886 Application 08/441,493 Since, as noted above, we consider that the examiner’s combination of the prior art in this instance is motivated solely by impermissible hindsight, it follows that we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of appellant’s claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For the same reason, we will also not sustain the examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Independent claim 15 on appeal is directed to an apparatus for playing an anagram game, wherein the apparatus includes, inter alia, "character moving means" for moving each of said characters from its respective initial position to its respective final position, and “random selection means for randomly selecting one of said final positions into which a predetermined one of said characters is to be moved by said character moving means." The “character moving means”is described in the paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5 of appellant’s specification, while the “random selection means” is described in the paragraph bridging pages 7 and 8 of the specification. On page 7 of his answer, the examiner has taken the position that claim 15 on appeal presents 13Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007