Appeal No. 2005-1266 6
Application No. 10/227,755
win, and (3) a plurality of stewardship cards with each player
utilizing a card to record his or her relative position during
the game whereby the first player to complete a card is declared
the winner. Given the fair teachings of Smith and the actual
scope of representative claim 1, however, the appellant’s
position is not persuasive.
To begin with, Smith’s disclosure of “play money” (Abstract)
which is credited to the players (see, for example, column 1,
lines 26 through 30) responds fully to the limitation in claim 1
calling broadly for a supply of simulated money. Notwithstanding
the appellant’s implication to the contrary (see, for example,
pages 6, 13 and 14 in the main brief), claim 1 does not require
the supply of simulated money to be in the form of paper.
Furthermore, and as pointed out above, Smith’s game board 10
comprises first, second and third sections whereby each player
must advance sequentially through the first and second sections
and be on the third section to be eligible to win the game as
recited in claim 1.
Finally, and as also pointed out above, Smith’s asset and
end of life tally sheets in effect constitute stewardship cards
for recording the relative positions of the players during
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007