Appeal No. 2004-0365 Page 3
Application No. 10/105,505
Claims 1-8 and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Purlia.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Purlia in view of Ledet.
Claims 11, 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Purlia in view of Delamontagne.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 7) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief (Paper No. 6) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim before us on appeal, reads as follows:
1. A project management game, comprising:
a game board having indicia thereon, the indicia
representing a plurality of tasks that collectively form a
plurality of deliverables to be completed and to be managed
by a plurality of participants in the project management
game, wherein the participants form one or more teams that
play the project management game;
a plurality of game pieces positioned on the game
board, each of the game pieces representing a selected one
of the teams, wherein the project management game ends
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007