Appeal 2006-3079
Application 10/708,033
We turn now to the rejection of claims 12-27 as unpatentable over
Calhoun in view of Bouchal. Appellants’ arguments contesting this
rejection focus on what Appellants characterize as an “already
predetermined” inherent relationship between the sentence on the sentence
card and the pictures on the picture cards (Appeal Br. 19). Given Calhoun’s
repeated use of the language “interesting, creative, and/or entertaining”
(FF5, FF6) to describe the required explanation of the relationships,
Appellants’ characterization of the relationships as being “already
predetermined” and “inherent” strikes us as somewhat unfair. In any event,
as pointed out by the Examiner (Answer 8), Appellants’ claims 12-27 do not
exclude already predetermined, inherent relationships between the legends
and pictures on the threat cards and the legends and pictures on the tool
cards. In fact, following Appellants’ characterization of the relationship of
the sentence on the sentence card and the pictures on the picture cards of
Calhoun, the legends and pictures on Appellants’ threat cards and tool cards
may likewise be characterized as already predetermined and inherent, in that
they are connected by the story told by the player. We therefore conclude
that Appellants’ characterization of the relationship between the sentence on
the sentence card and the pictures on the picture cards does not demonstrate
a patentable distinction between the subject matter of claims 12-27 and
Calhoun.
The explanation of the types of relationships described by Calhoun
(FF7), especially in light of Calhoun’s description of them as “interesting,
creative, and/or entertaining” (FF5, FF6), satisfies the limitation of “telling a
story based on the selected hand of cards” recited in Appellants’ claims 12
and 27 (FF8 and FF9). Accordingly, the rejection of claims 12 and 27 as
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013