Appeal No. 2002-1407
Application 09/157,995
relying on a teaching in Pickardt addressing the added
limitations found in dependent claims 2 and 3 on appeal (i.e., a
rotatable disc or wheel used in the secondary game), the examiner
has made no attempt in this rejection to account for the
limitation both the examiner and appellant acknowledge is missing
in Bally from independent claim 1 on appeal regarding wagering
less than all of the winnings of a primary game. Neither Bally
nor Pickardt address this limitation found in appellant’s claim 1
and, by their dependency, in claims 2 and 3. Thus, it is clear
that the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to dependent claims 2 and 3, and the
rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will not be
sustained.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007