Appeal No. 2004-0365 Page 6
Application No. 10/105,505
plurality of participants in the project management game” (brief, pages 3-4) and urges
that it would not have been obvious to modify Purlia to provide such indicia.
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the examiner that Purlia’s game
board does have indicia which meet the limitations of claim 1; it is thus not necessary to
modify Purlia to meet this limitation of claim 1. It follows that we do not find appellant’s
argument persuasive of the nonobviousness of the subject matter of claim 1. We
therefore sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We note that appellant has not
argued separately the patentability of claims 2-8 and 13-15 apart from claim 1, thus
allowing them to stand or fall with representative claim 1 (see brief, page 3). See In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Wood, 582
F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978).
We shall also sustain the rejections of dependent claim 12 as being
unpatentable over Purlia in view of Ledet and claims 11, 16 and 17 as being
unpatentable over Purlia in view of Delamontagne since appellant has not challenged
such with any reasonable specificity. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572,
2USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-8 and 11-17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007