Appeal No. 97-2886
Application 08/441,493
In contrast with the examiner’s assertions, we are not aware
that the typical format of the previously known REVELATION™ game
included the specific step of randomly selecting one of the
anagrams as required in appellant’s claim 16 on appeal, or that
such prior game involved the particular step of “moving the
characters of said selected anagram” as set forth in appellant’s
claim 16. In this regard, we note that neither appellant nor the
examiner has clearly defined exactly what apparatus and method
steps were involved in playing the previously known version of
the REVELATION™ game, as compared to appellant’s improved version
thereof, and that consequently any understanding of that prior
art game involves a degree of speculation which we find
unacceptable. Given the lack of an adequate factual basis to
support the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness with regard to
claim 16 on appeal, especially the last two steps thereof, we
will not sustain the rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. We will likewise not sustain the rejection of claims 17
through 20, which depend from independent claim 16, under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007