Appeal No. 2007-0943 Page 7
Application No. 09/965,163
Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The operative question in this “functional
approach” is thus “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of
prior art elements according to their established functions.” Id.
D. Analysis
Moody discloses all the claimed steps but for the steps of manually
completing the sweepstakes form, submitting the sweepstakes entry form without
involving the gaming machine, and conducting the sweepstakes (FF 2-3). These
steps are shown in Brandstetter (FF 5-6). The claimed method appears to be the
combination two known methods, Moody’s gaming method which includes
dispensing a sweepstakes form and Brandstetter’s sweepstakes method. “The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 127 S.Ct.
1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). No secondary considerations have
been submitted. Accordingly, we find the claimed combination would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Appellant argued that no reference the Examiner cited shows the claimed
condition that triggers the gaming machine to dispense a sweepstakes form
(Appeal Br. 8-9). We disagree. Moody describes the triggering condition as the
response to “a combination of symbols on a pay line” (Moody [0030]). We see no
difference between the condition Moody describes and the condition claimed, i.e.,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013