Appeal No. 2006-1772
Application No. 09/993,359
Edgeworth, Bunco Rules and Falciglia. The examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 5
and 6 of the answer. Throughout the opinion we make reference to the briefs, the answer
and the final Office action for the respective details thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner
as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration,
in reaching our decision, appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejections and the arguments of appellants and the examiner, and for the
reasons stated infra we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 109 and 115 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. However, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 110
through 114 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants argue, on page 7 and 8 of the brief, that Matsumoto is directed to a
device to display a dice throw where a track ball is used to roll the dice. Appellants
argue that Matsumoto does not teach Bunco or matching the indicium on each dice
element tossed with the match indicium of a match point, or a game played in successive
stages.
On page 8 of the brief, appellants argue that Edgeworth teaches away from the
invention and that Edgeworth does not teach the claimed features which are not taught by
Matsumoto. Appellants state “[a]lthough the specification of Edgeworth mentions in
passing that the invention may be adaptable to dice games such as ‘twenty six’ and
‘Bunco’ (col. 1, lns. 32-36), the present invention is quite simply not Bunco, but a
Bunco-type dice game. Edgeworth does not disclose a Bunco-type dice game according
to the present invention that includes a wager and payout on a video display device.”
Further, appellants state that Edgeworth does not teach a video display device including a
wager and payout as claimed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007