Appeal No. 2002-1022
Application 09/326,934
specification. In addition, on pages 15-16 of the brief,
appellants make the following argument,
Borders are shown on the reel whether a virtual reel or
physical reel, the borders are images as opposed to a
physical structure, such as the three-dimensional frame
overlay of Anderson on the reels themselves. The images
must be on the reel. In a virtual system, that would be
performed by imaging software that provides the data for
display of a border. In a reel system, any format for an
image e.g., painting, printing, decal, etc. of the border
applied to the reel itself is intended and enabled.
Accordingly, in a physical reel format, we are of the view
that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
language “borders as images on the reels” in appellants’ claim 1
to require some form of addition to the reel itself (e.g.,
painting, printing, decal, overlay, etc.) applied to the reel to
provide visually apparent borders on the reel that surround the
symbols, characters or alphanumerics and clearly locally define
the frames.
With the above noted understanding in mind, we look to the
examiner’s use of Andersen or Yamamoto or Howard in the rejection
of claims 1, 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Andersen
discloses a physical reel slot machine like that generally
defined in claim 1 on appeal and, as seen in Figure 1 of the
patent, includes a plurality of reels or wheels (4) carried in a
cabinet or housing having a window (10). On page 9 of the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007