Appeal No. 2001-0258 Page 5
Application No. 08/821,978
Moreover, with regard to claim 10, it is not clear how the
two "or" clauses interact with one another. In particular, it is
unclear whether exposing the other chance means in a sequence
wherein the other chance means supercedes the altering and makes
the player's altering dependent on the other chance means or
exposing the other chance means prior to the altering to make the
player's altering independent of the other chance means is
included within the scope of the claim. Stated differently, it
is not certain whether the terms "dependent" and "independent" in
the first "or" clause of claim 10 are exclusively associated with
the terms "precedes" and "supercedes," respectively.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner's rejection of
claims 10, 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
sustained.3 However, because our explanation as to why the
alternative terminology in claims 10 and 17 renders the claims
indefinite differs somewhat from that articulated by the examiner
and in light of our additional observations with respect to the
claims on appeal in our new ground of rejection, infra, we
denominate our affirmance of the indefiniteness rejection as a
3 It is not apparent to us why the examiner did not include claims 11-
16, which depend from claim 16, or claims 19-26, which depend from claim 17,
in this indefiniteness rejection. In any event, we have included these claims
in our new ground of rejection, infra.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007