Appeal 2007-1928
Application 10/163,282
We affirm the anticipation rejection based on the Guertin reference.
Appellants argue the tokens of Guertin are not customizable by the players. The
claims do not state exactly who customizes the claimed subject matter.
Additionally, as we understand Appellants’ invention, the confetti or bits of
material are customized by the manufacturer of the confetti not by the user or the
recipient. Appellants further argue that Guertin does not teach confetti. Guertin
teaches customized claim tokens of the size and material of Appellants’ claimed
confetti. Therefore, the tokens of Guertin are indistinguishable from Appellants’
confetti. Consequently, we must hold that Appellants’ claimed confetti lacks
novelty over the tokens of Guertin. At any rate, this confetti argument is seen to
only run to claims that specify confetti. We must remind Appellants that many of
the claims in this group are directed simply to bits of material.
Appellants argue that the tokens of Guertin are not individually
customizable. As can be seen these tokens have different images. Therefore, the
tokens with different images have been individually customized. Furthermore, as
noted above, customizable relates to a state that may not be used at all.
Presumably the tokens of Guertin have an image on one side thereof. We
note that the cards of Guertin are printed with a different printed material on either
side. Therefore, Guertin does disclose bits of material with two or more different
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013