Appeal No. 96-2890
Application 08/318,781
OPINION
The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
It is the examiner’s position in rejecting the claims under
the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 that no support is present
in the specification for the expressions of “paths extending
diagonally with respect to a peripheral edge of the playing
surface” and “parallel lines extend diagonally off from a
peripheral edge of a corresponding one of said game-boards.” The
examiner also questions the meaning of “diagonally off,” which
edge of the game-board is being referenced, whether there is a
frame on the board of Figure 3, and whether Figure 3 corresponds
to each board in Figure 1. See Answer, page 3.
Our study of the disclosure of the invention leads us to the
conclusion that the examiner’s objections are not well taken.
From our perspective, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
had no difficulty in understanding the construction of the three
game boards, including the relationships of the various elements
of the claims with respect to one another, which the examiner has
questioned. We will not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph.
The rejection under the second paragraph of Section 112 is
on the basis that the passages quoted above with regard to the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007