Appeal No. 2006-1747
Application No. 10/455,666
not provide support for the newly added limitation ‘at least one
air blower being retained within said space’ as in claim 1, or
[‘]with a cavity formed therebetween, the cavity constructed to
receive a blower motor therein’ as in claim 17” (answer, page 3).
The examiner acknowledges that “[t]he specification provides
support for an air blower retained in a sliding drawer between
the pool [table] and air powered hockey table between the cavity
surface”. See id. Thus, the examiner’s argument is that the
appellant’s specification requires that the air blower must be in
a drawer in the space or cavity between the pool table and the
air powered hockey table.
The examiner’s argument is not persuasive even if it is
correct. The reason is that, as pointed out by the appellant
(reply brief, page 5), the drawer fits in a space or cavity
between the pool table and the air powered hockey table, and the
drawer has a space or cavity within it. Hence, the air blower in
the drawer is within a space or cavity between the pool table and
the air powered hockey table.
We therefore reverse the rejection of claims 1-5 and 17-23.
Claims 34 and 38
Independent claim 32 requires a combination game table
having a pool table on one side and a gambling table on the other
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007