Ex Parte Couturier - Page 2



              Appeal No. 2004-0473                                                                     -2-              
              Application No. 10/034,527                                                                                

                     Appellant’s invention pertains to a device that assists in keeping score of a Euchre               
              game.  As explained in the “Summary of the Invention” section on pages 1-2 of the                         
              specification:                                                                                            
                     The device includes a tablet with two types of spots and markers.  The first                       
                     type keeps track of the score of the two different “teams.”  As an example,                        
                     there are typically ten of this type of spots aligned on each side of the tablet.                  
                     Pins or other markers can be inserted into the spots and moved as the score                        
                     changes.                                                                                           
                            Further, there are preferably four markers for identifying . . . what suit                  
                     is trump, and which will also identify which of the two teams named the                            
                     trump.                                                                                             
                            Also, the tablet has a slidable cover which can be moved to expose a                        
                     storage space for the cards and the market [sic, marking] pegs.                                    
                     A further understanding of appellant’s invention can be derived from a reading of                  
              claim 1, which appears in the appendix to appellant’s main brief.                                         
                     The following references have been relied upon by the examiner as evidence of                      
              obviousness:                                                                                              
              Smith                              1,714,929                   May   28, 1929                             
              Townsend                           4,332,386                   June    1, 1982                            
              Price                       WO 90/10480                        Sept.  20, 1990                            

                     Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Price                  
              in view of Smith and Townsend.                                                                            













Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007