Appeal No. 2001-1875
Application No. 09/193,257
Claims 2, 6, 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wood in view of Scarne,
more particularly, Scarne's "Pokino" game (page 31), and
further in view of Miller.
Claims 3 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Wood in view of Scarne, more
particularly, Scarne's "Pokino" game (page 31), and further in
view of Weingardt.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's specific comments
regarding the above-noted rejections and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding
those rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 9, mailed October 10, 2000) for the reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No.
8, filed August 25, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 10, filed
December 5, 2000) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007