Appeal No. 2001-0258 Page 3
Application No. 08/821,978
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection and answer
(Paper Nos. 7 and 11) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections and to the brief (Paper No. 10) for the
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness rejection
The basis of the examiner's indefiniteness rejection of
claims 10, 17 and 18 is that "there are simply [too] many or
clauses in the claims so as to make the claim extremely broad
such that almost any piece of prior art with two gambling means
could read on the claims" (final rejection, p. 2). In the answer
(p. 3), the examiner explains that the limitations within the
"or” clauses oppose each other and thus are made indefinite.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007