Appeal No. 2001-1969
Application No. 09/040,478
Appellants’ invention pertains to a slot machine and to a
method for operating a slot machine. A basic understanding of
the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims
34 and 35, respective copies of which appear in the APPENDIX to
the main brief (Paper No. 13).
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:
Adams 5,823,874 Oct. 20, 1988
Mangano et al. 5,839,955 Nov. 24, 1998
(Mangano)
Brune et al. 5,851,148 Dec. 22, 1998
(Brune)
“The Joker’s Wild”, Jack Barry Productions, September 4, 1972-
June 13, 1975 (online) Retrieved from the Internet [2000-03-08]
URL<wysiwyg://45/http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/5134/
joker72.html>
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 32 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
fourth paragraph, as failing to further limit the subject matter
of a previous claim.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007