Appeal No. 2002-1022
Application 09/326,934
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full commentary with
regard to 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. 12, mailed July 3, 2001) for the reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellants’ replacement brief (Paper
No. 13, filed April 25, 2001) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3 and
5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). At the outset we note that
independent claim 1 defines a reel slot casino wagering game that
includes a housing having at least two displayed reels therein,
with each reel having symbols, characters or alphanumerics on an
outer surface of the reel that are displayed as frames, wherein
combinations of the frames define game outcomes, and wherein at
least some of the frames have “borders as images on the reels
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007