Appeal No. 2004-1251 Page 5
Application No. 09/972,658
It is thus apparent that Sity contemplates that different types of sensors other than the
ones specifically enumerated therein may be suitable for use with the disclosed
electronic dice system.
Jenkins quite apparently differs from the invention recited in claims 1 and 5 in
that the object carrying a bar code is not a die. Sity discloses a die having sensors
installed in the faces thereof, including sensors configured with ID codes which are
compared with a code transmitted by the computer to prevent illegal or fraudulent
copying of the die or the software with which the die is used. Sity, however, lacks a
teaching of the sensor being a bar code strip as called for in claims 1 and 5.
It is the examiner’s position (answer, page 3) that it would have been obvious in
view of the combined teachings of Jenkins and Sity “to modify the die of Sity so that it
uses a bar code on the die as a more inexpensive way to verify/identify information
regarding the die.” Appellant argues on pages 5 and 6 of the brief that the sensors of
Sity cannot be replaced by a bar code and still perform their function of determining the
numbers of the faces that are face up and face down and that, in any event, “[t]he use
of the bar code strip in dice is only obvious with hindsight gained from Appellant’s
disclosure” (brief, page 6).
Even assuming, arguendo, that bar code strips could be used in the Sity device
to perform the dual function of authentication and indicating which die face is facing
upward after a toss of the die, we find nothing in the teachings of Sity or Jenkins which
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007