Appeal No. 96-1827
Application 08/112,576
the hindsight provided by the instant disclosure that one might consider using the faces to indicate
direction” (brief, page 21). This line of argument is not convincing because it is predicated on an
intended use of the faces. Here again, it is not evident why the faces disclosed by the prior art would
not be inherently capable of indicating direction. Thus, the combined teachings of Samuels and Wade
would have suggested the set of pieces recited in claims 7 and 8. Claim 20 falls with claim 8 due to its
grouping therewith pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (see page 7 in the brief).
In summary, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 20 is affirmed with respect
to claims 1 through 10, 13 through 16, 19 and 20 and reversed with respect to claims 11, 12, 17 and
18.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007