Appeal No. 2003-0097
Application 09/360,969
Attention is directed to the appellants’ brief (Paper No.
15) and to the final rejection and examiner’s answer (Paper Nos.
8 and 16) for the respective positions of the appellants and
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.1
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (enablement), rejection
Insofar as the enablement requirement of § 112, ¶ 1, is
concerned, the dispositive issue is whether the appellants’
disclosure, considering the level of ordinary skill in the art as
of the date of the application, would have enabled a person of
such skill to make and use the invention without undue
experimentation. In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212
USPQ 561, 563-64 (CCPA 1982). In calling into question the
enablement of the disclosure, the examiner has the initial burden
of advancing acceptable reasoning inconsistent with enablement.
Id.
Dependent claim 17 further defines the interactive game
system recited in parent independent claim 14 as comprising game
terminals which “permit the players to wager on a sub-set of
indicia in anticipation of the wagered sub-set being the first to
1 The record indicates that the failure of the examiner to
restate the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection in the
answer was inadvertent.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007