Appeal No. 2007-0943 Page 8
Application No. 09/965,163
in response to “a number of activated pay lines,” which encompasses a single
activated pay line (claim 1). In both instances, the trigger event is an activated pay
line.
We note that Appellant’s argument focuses on Brune. However, we find
Moody sufficient to show the claimed triggering event. Brune is cumulative on
that point. Accordingly, the Board is relying on less than all of the references the
Examiner applied. But that does not warrant a new ground of rejection. In re
Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263,266-67 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363
F.2d 455, 458 n.2 150 USPQ 441,444 n.2 (CCPA 1966).
Appellant also argued that there is no motivation to combine the references
(Appeal Br. 9-12). However, we repeat, the Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he
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). Here the elements of the claimed
method are taught in Moody and Brandstetter. They function precisely as set forth
in the references. The result – the dispensing of a sweepstake form to then be
entered in a sweepstakes – is predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art with the
references in hand. Since Appellant has not shown anything unexpected from the
claimed combination, we find the claimed subject matter to be obvious.
The rejections of the claims are affirmed.
E. Conclusion of Law
On the record before us, Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013