Appeal 2006-3079
Application 10/708,033
Calhoun US 5,547,199 Aug. 20, 1996
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-11
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Dwyer and claims 12-27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Calhoun in view of
Bouchal. The rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been
withdrawn (Answer 3).
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
Answer (mailed March 14, 2006). Appellants present opposing arguments
in the Appeal Brief (filed November 17, 2005) and Reply Brief (filed May
15, 2006).
THE ISSUES
Appellants contend that claims 1 and 11 are not anticipated by Dwyer
because Dwyer’s alphabet playing card deck does not comprise two suits
(Appeal Br. 6-8 and 14-17). Appellants additionally contend that dependent
claims 2-10 are not anticipated by Dwyer because the particular features
recited in these claims are not disclosed by Dwyer (Appeal Br. 9-12). With
respect to the rejection of claims 12-27 as unpatentable over Calhoun in
view of Bouchal, Appellants contend the Examiner has impermissibly
ignored teachings of Calhoun directed to a predetermined, inherent
relationship of the sentence and picture cards of Calhoun to one another
(Appeal Br. 19, 25). Appellants further contend the features recited in
dependent claims 13-26 are not taught or suggested by Calhoun and
Bouchal, alone or in combination (Appeal Br. 21-25).
In light of Appellants’ contentions, the first issue before us is whether
Appellants have demonstrated that the Examiner erred in rejecting any of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013