Appeal No. 2004-1251 Page 7
Application No. 09/972,658
the combination of Jenkins and Sity, it follows that we also cannot sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 4 as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Sity and
Onzo.3
3 It is also worthy of note that Onzo, directed to a heptahedron random character selector having
as one of its components an indicia-marked sheet 14 either inserted into the periphery of the body 3, with
subsequent insertion of the core member 37 or, alternatively, wrapped about a core member to form a
sub-assembly, the sub-assembly then being inserted into the interior periphery of the body 3, provides no
teaching or suggestion whatsoever to provide a wrapper with a verification character printed on its interior
surface and to seal Sity’s die in the wrapper so that only an outer surface of the wrapper is exposed to
view, as also called for in claim 4.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007