Appeal No. 03-2051 Page 8
Application No. 09/127,183
limitations in the manner required under the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §112. This
being the case, the rejection cannot be sustained for the same reasons as were applied
against the rejection of claim 23. It follows that the like rejection of claims 10-15, which
depend from claim 24, cannot be sustained.
This conclusion is not altered by consideration of Smith, which was applied for
teaching that games having idle time counters that reset the game to a starting mode
after the expiration of a preset time were known in the art at the time of the appellant’s
invention. In passing, we wish further to point out that the examiner has not directed us
to evidence in the applied references or elsewhere which supports the conclusion that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an idle time counter to
the McArthur system “to provide a more efficient reset method,” as has been asserted
on page 6 of the Answer.
Claim 25 recites means for preventing an enhanced payout interval in response
to an idle time signal. As was the case with claims 23 and 24, the examiner has not
met the burden necessary to reject claims containing means-plus-function limitations,
and therefore the rejection of claim 25 also cannot be sustained.
Remand To The Examiner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007