Appeal No. 2003-1112
Application No. 09/520,892
Claims 14, 15, 19-21, 45-51 and 61-63 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Yamauchi in view of Mitchell further in view of Chong.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 16, mailed Sep. 30, 2002) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 15, filed Jul. 12, 2002) and reply brief
(Paper No. 18, filed Nov. 29, 2002) for appellants’ 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 make the determinations which follow.
35 USC § 102
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope of the
claim. "[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Therefore, we look to the limitations set forth
in independent claim 1.
Appellants argue that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation since not all of the claimed elements are taught by Yamauchi. (See brief at
pages 5-8.) Appellants argue that the examiner maintains that Yamauchi teaches an
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007