Appeal No. 2001-0258 Page 7
Application No. 08/821,978
Claims 10-464 are rejected under the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112 as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
appellants regard as their invention.
The recitation in claim 10 of a step of "exposing other
chance means5 to the player in a sequence which makes the
player's altering dependent on or independent of the other chance
means based on whether the exposing step precedes or supersedes
the altering" appears to require a step of selecting between two
possible sequences, one in which the step of exposing the other
chance means precedes the player's alteration of one of the
chance means and another in which the exposing step supercedes
the player's alteration of one of the chance means. Similarly,
claim 17 recites "strategy sequencing means coupled to said
second chance means having enabling means to link or dissociate
said first chance means from or to said second chance means
4 While our inclusion of claims 10, 17 and 18 in this new ground of
rejection might seem redundant, in light of our decision to sustain the
examiner’s rejection of these claims, as discussed above, some of our reasons
for concluding that claims 10, 17 and 18 are indefinite are so inextricably
related to our reasons for concluding that the remaining claims on appeal are
indefinite that it makes sense to discuss all of these claims together.
5 Consistent with appellants' underlying disclosure, which discusses
only two chance means, it appears that "other chance means" in claim 10, line
5, and claim 34, line 5, as reproduced in the appendix to appellants' brief,
should be "the other [another] of said chance means," in light of the earlier
recited step of "displaying to a player more than one chance means" in each of
claims 10 and 34.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007