Appeal No. 2005-1003
Application No. 09/967,249
combination. Hence, the winning combination of cells is not
limited to three cells in a row, i.e., in a so-called payline.
Appealed claims 1-11, 20-32 and 41-43 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Payne in view of
Giobbi. Claims 12-19 and 33-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the stated combination of
references further in view of Moody.
Appellants have presented separate substantive arguments
only for claims 15, 16, 19, 36, 37 and 40, as a group.
Accordingly, with the exception of this separately argued group
of claims, all the appealed claims stand or fall together with
claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
There is no dispute that the gaming apparatus of Payne fails
to allow the player to individually select the number of cells
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007