Appeal No. 2005-0469 Page 5
Application No. 10/093,994
region set of game pieces, as illustrated in Figure 1, cannot anticipate the subject matter
of claim 1 because it would not comprise therein at least two game pieces including just
one of the types of indicia and at least two game pieces including just the other of the
types of indicia.
A mixed twin and single region set, as illustrated in Byrne’s Figure 3, would,
however, meet the limitations of claim 1. In particular, the mixed region set includes a
set of at least 6 (ten are illustrated in the subset of Figure 3) domino-like pieces having
two halves1 and having indicia of one or more of two types, dark circles and light circles.
At least one (three as illustrated in Figure 3) of the pieces have both dark and light
circles, at least two (in fact, three as illustrated in Figure 3) of the pieces have only dark
circles and at least two (the pieces with the single light circle, three light circles and five
light circles, respectively) have only light circles. The light and dark circles are of
opposite polarity2, notwithstanding that such terminology is not used by Byrne to
describe them.3 As for the preambular recitation of a “zero-sum” tiling game, Byrne’s
game pieces are certainly suitable for use in a zero-sum game, wherein the object is to
1 Note that claim 1 does not recite any association between the locations of the indicia and the
halves.
2 We note, in this regard, appellants’ disclosure on page 6 of their specification that indicia of two
different colors, for example, may be employed to make a binary distinction, that is, to indicate opposite
polarity.
3 Anticipation does not require that the reference teach what the subject application teaches, but
only that the claim read on something disclosed in the reference, i.e., that all of the limitations in the claim
be found in or fully met by the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ
781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984). Further, while anticipation requires the
disclosure of each and every limitation of the claim at issue in a single prior art reference, it does not
require such disclosure in haec verba. In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660, 193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007