Appeal No. 2005-0167 Page 2
Application No. 10/272,722
The appellants’ invention relates to a system for and a method of capturing a
player's image for incorporation into a game, especially a casino type wagering video
game (specification, p. 1). A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the
appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The prior art references
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Lambert 5,012,522 Apr. 30, 1991
Penzias 5,397,133 Mar. 14, 1995
Parulski et al. (Parulski) 5,595,389 Jan. 21, 1997
Takemoto et al. (Takemoto) 5,984,780 Nov. 16, 1999
The rejections
Claims 47, 54 and 60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 41 to 60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Takemoto in view of Lambert, Penzias and Parulski.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed March 30, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed February 17, 2004) and reply brief (filed June 1, 2004)
for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007