Appeal No. 2004-2334
Application No. 09/888,145
entitled to patentable weight. Accordingly, we sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Mueller, again noting that lack of novelty is the
ultimate or epitome of obviousness.
Concerning dependent claims 3 through 5, 8, 10, 13 and 14,
we agree with the examiner's rejection of dependent claims 3, 4,
8, 10, 13 and 14 on the same basis as discussed above, but do not
agree with the examiner's rejection of claim 5. Claim 5 adds to
the structure of the game defined in independent claim 1 that
"each fortune cookie includes more than one strip of paper." We
do not see that the examiner has specifically dealt with this
limitation and we find nothing in Mueller which would have been
suggestive to one of ordinary skill in the art of more than one
strip of paper in each fortune cookie. Thus, we will sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 3, 4, 8, 10, 13 and 14, but not
that of claim 5.
The next rejection for our review is that of claims 2, 7, 9
and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Mueller in view of Reynolds. As noted on pages 3-4 of the
answer, it is the examiner's view that
1010
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007