Ex Parte Slomiany et al - Page 12



                   Appeal No. 2006-1772                                                                                           
                   Application No. 09/993,359                                                                                     


                          We disagree with the examiner.  As stated supra, we find that in Bunco, if a roll                       
                   of a dice does not result in a match point, the roll moves to the next player, the match                       
                   point value does not change until the next round which begins after one player achieves a                      
                   score of 21.  Similarly, we do not find that the game of “twenty six” taught by                                
                   Edgeworth, teaches of suggests this feature (in the game “twenty six” the match point                          
                   remains until the completion of 13 rolls).  Accordingly, we will not sustain the                               
                   examiner’s rejection of claim 112 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.                                                       
                          Rejection of claim 115.                                                                                 
                          Appellants argue, on page 12 of the brief, that claim 115 recites a plurality of                        
                   match points with match indicium where some or all of the indicium may be the same, is                         
                   a feature which is not taught or suggested by the prior art.  Further, on page 12 of the                       
                   reply brief, appellants argue that neither Matsumoto, Edgeworth nor Bunco teach a                              
                   randomly selected match indicium.                                                                              
                          In the statement of the rejection on page 5 of the answer, the examiner refers to                       
                   the game of “twenty six” taught by Edgworth, and finds that the game makes use of a                            
                   plurality of match points that are selected by the user at random.                                             
                          We concur with the examiner’s rationale.  Claim 115 is dependent upon claim                             
                   109 and further recites “wherein a plurality of match points are established, each of said                     
                   plurality of match points having a match indicium selected at random, whereby some or                          
                   all of said match indicia of said plurality of match points may thereby be the same.”  We                      
                   note that the examiner made the same point in the office action dated August 24, 2005.                         
                   Appellants’ arguments have not specifically identified why the randomly selected match                         
                   points in the game of “twenty six” do not meet this claim limitation.  As stated supra, we                     
                   find that that the game of “twenty six” meets the limitations directed to match points in                      
                   claim 109.  Further, we concur with the examiner’s finding that the game of “twenty six”                       






                                                               12                                                                 



Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007