Appeal No. 96-2890
Application 08/318,781
the playing surfaces is “printed matter” which is “not limiting,”
and he has ignored it in setting out this rejection. See Paper
No. 8, page 3.
We agree with the appellant that this position on the part
of the examiner is in error, in that the claimed paths do not
merely provide printed information, but are an integral part of
the game board structure. The limitation is present in both
claims, and it clearly is not taught by either of the applied
references. Such being the case, a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter of claims 11 and 22
has not been established, and we will not sustain the Section 103
rejection.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007