Appeal No. 2007-0943 Page 5
Application No. 09/965,163
gaming machine, and conducting the sweepstakes.
5. The Examiner found that
Brandstetter et al. teaches the following:
Completing the tangible sweepstakes entry form manually with
identifying indicia (paragraphs 19-21 and 37 and summary) as recited
in claims 1, 14, 18, and 27. By completing a sweepstakes entry form
manually, one of ordinary skill in the art would provide game players
a chance at a supplemental award to there [sic, their] initial gaming
award.
(Answer 4-5).
6. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s characterization of what
Brandstetter discloses (Appeal Br. 7-12).
C. Principles of Law
1. What a reference teaches is a question of fact. Panduit Corp. v. Dennison
Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1579 n.42, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1606 n.42 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
2. Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “ the differences between the
subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the
subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains.”
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and (3) the level
of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013