Ex Parte Slomiany et al - Page 13



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

                   allows the user to select more than one match point.  Edgeworth teaches that the user                          
                   selects the match point, Edgeworth does not teach that the user is constrained as to which                     
                   indicia must be selected, and thus the selection is random.  Therefore, appellants’                            
                   arguments have not convinced us of error in the examiner’s rejection of claim 115.                             
                   Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 115 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.                           
                          Rejection of claims 113 and 114.                                                                        
                          Initially we note that the examiner rejects claims 113 and 114 as being                                 
                   unpatentable over the combination of Matsumoto Edgeworth and Bunco; and also the                               
                   combination of Matsumoto, Edgeworth, Bunco and Falciglia.  As both rejections rely                             
                   upon the combination of Matsumoto, Edgeworth and Bunco, we will treat both rejections                          
                   in the same discussion.                                                                                        
                          On page 12 of the brief and page 11 of the reply brief, appellants argue that                           
                   claims 113 and 114 contain a randomly allocated free advancement feature, which is not                         
                   shown in the art.  On page 9 of the reply brief, appellants argue that Falciglia discloses an                  
                   extra spin in a video bingo game and that there is no suggestion or motivation to combine                      
                   this reference with the dice games of Matsumoto, Edgeworth and Bunco Rules.                                    
                          The examiner’s statement of rejection based upon the combination of Matsumoto,                          
                   Edgeworth and Bunco does not identify where this feature is taught.  The examiner’s                            
                   statement of rejection based upon Matsumoto, Edgeworth, Bunco and Falciglia, state that                        
                   this feature is not taught by Matsumoto, Edgeworth and Bunco, however is taught by                             
                   Falciglia.  The examiner finds that Falciglia teaches free spins and that their use is to                      
                   continue a game that would otherwise terminate.                                                                
                          We disagree with the examiner and do not find that the free spin teaching of                            
                   Falciglia in combination with Matsumoto, Edgeworth and Bunco teaches the limitations                           
                   of claims 113 and 114.    Claim 113 recites “the game includes a randomly selected free                        
                   advancement feature, and determines a game ending condition if no match is made at a                           






                                                               13                                                                 



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

Last modified: November 3, 2007