Appeal No. 2005-1266 5
Application No. 10/227,755
executed by a player, and each player must advance sequentially
through the first and second sections and be on the third section
to be eligible to win the game (see column 6, line 23, through
column 10, line 24).
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is not necessary 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).
The appellant (see pages 4 through 14 in the main brief and
pages 4 through 6 in the reply brief) contends that the rejection
based on Smith is unsound because Smith does not disclose (1) a
supply of simulated money, (2) a game board divided into first,
second and third sections with each player being required to
advance sequentially through these sections to be eligible to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007