Appeal No. 2006-0811
Application No. 10/323,510
The examiner argues that Bingo discloses “selecting a bingo
ball from a plurality of balls, selecting a came [sic, game]
card, checking to determine if a match exists, and in that case
the area corresponding to that number is either filled with a
crayon or marked as being a matched number” (answer, page 4).
Bingo discloses, in the commercial session embodiment, writing
the called numbers in boxes in one of three rows on a card
(page 274). The boxes into which the numbers are written
are blank, and the numbers are merely written into the boxes.
There is no tracing area "comprising a symbol educationally
corresponding to said game board indicia" as required by claim 1,
or step of tracing as required by claim 16. Consequently, the
examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation
over Bingo of the game claimed in the appellant’s claims 1 and 11
or the method claimed in the appellant’s claim 16.
Rejection of claims 5, 6, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Adkison in view of Hankins
Claims 5 and 12 require that the tracing area comprises an
erasable surface.2
2 Those claims erroneously recite “drawing area” instead of
“tracing area”.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007