Appeal No. 2001-1225 Page 2
Application No. 09/019,693
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a game played on a playing surface. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which
appears in the appendix to the appellant's Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Seede 1,599,188 Sep. 7, 1926
Sterlicchi et al. (Sterlicchi) 3,647,215 Mar. 7, 1972
Schwartz 3,841,632 Oct. 15, 1974
Breslow 3,907,294 Sep. 23,1975
Laciste 4,146,228 Mar. 27, 1979
Sexton 4,934,024 Jun. 19, 1990
Melton 4,962,929 Oct. 16, 1990
Chou et al. (Chou) 5,467,538 Nov. 21, 1995
Gay 5,882,007 Mar. 16, 1999
Claims 1-5, 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Seede in view of Breslow, Gay, Sterlicchi, Schwartz, Chou and Laciste.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
references applied against claim 1 et al. further in view of Sexton.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
references applied against claim 1 et al. further in view of Melton.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007