Appeal No. 2002-1022
Application 09/326,934
Figure 5 of Howard has no symbols, frames or borders on it at all
until such time that one of the thin plastic reel-strips
disclosed in Howard is added to the reel drum, thereby providing
the reel drum with the visual appearance of symbols on its outer
surface displayed as frames and visually apparent borders on the
reel that surround the symbols, characters or alphanumerics and
clearly locally define the frames.
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Howard.
As noted above, appellants have grouped dependent claims 3 and 5
with claim 1, indicating with regard to the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) that claims 1, 3 and 5 “shall stand or fall
with the patentability of claim 1.” We therefore also sustain
the examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) based on Howard.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4 and 6
through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Andersen or Yamamoto or Howard in view of Barrie or Marnell II or
Falciglia, we note that, although somewhat inartfully stated, it
appears to be the examiner’s position that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellants’ invention, based on the teachings of the virtual
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007