Appeal No. 2005-0983
Application 09/923,675
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To reach a conclusion of
obviousness under § 103, the examiner must produce a factual
basis supported by a teaching in a prior art reference or shown
to be common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Our
reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish a
prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223
USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The examiner may satisfy
his/her burden only by showing some objective teaching in the
prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art would lead the individual to combine
the relevant teachings of the references. In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
It is the examiner’s position that Holmes discloses a video
poker game having a bonus award associated with the game, and a
predetermined arrangement of cards established as a winning bonus
award. The examiner contends that Holmes does not disclose
noting the matched cards as they occur, or continuing to deal
subsequent hands and allowing a player to play out each of the
subsequent hands in order to continue trying to match cards with
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007