Appeal No. 2001-0106
Application 08/855,811
The statements of the Examiner, noted above with respect to the §103 rejections
over Thomson, Pleuddemann, and Hahn individually, fall within the realm of “broad
conclusory statements”, and provide us with no findings in support of the §103 rejection.
Without a particularized finding along the lines of that suggested by Keller or W.M.S.
Gaming as to why one of skill in the art would modify the references, we are constrained
to reverse the §103 rejections over Thomson, Pleuddemann, and Hahn individually.
Issue II. The §103 Rejections over the Combinations of References
Turning now to the § 103 rejections based upon the combinations of references,
we address them together in the following categories for ease of reference:
Category A Rejections.
(Rejection E) Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bruder in view of Thomson.
(Rejection I) Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Bruder in view of Thomson further in view of Hahn.
(Rejection F) Claims 1, 3, and 8 are separately rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Bruder in view of either Pleuddemann or Hahn.
Category B Rejections.
(Rejection G) Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Thomson in view of Hahn.
Category C Rejections.
(Rejection C) Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Iliou in view of Thomson.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007