Ex Parte Anderson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 201210658975 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PETER R. ANDERSON and ERIC M. PRYZBY ____________ Appeal 2010-008387 Application 10/658,975 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008387 Application 10/658,975 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 10 to 22. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of Appellants' contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this record supports the Examiner's conclusion that the subject matter of Appellants' claims 10 to 12, 14 to 17, 21, and 22 is unpatentable over the combination of Smith and Brossard. In this regard, we adopt the findings and reasoning of the Examiner in regard to the teachings of Smith and Brossard. In addition, upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of Appellants' contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this record supports the Examiner's conclusion that the subject matter of Appellants' claims 13 and 18 is unpatentable over the combination of Smith in view of Brossard and Sato. In this regard, we adopt the findings and reasoning of the Examiner in regard to the teachings of Smith, Brossard, and Sato and that claims 13 and 18 would have been obvious over the combination. Further, upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of Appellants' contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this record supports the Examiner's conclusion that the subject matter of Appellants' claims 19 and 20 is unpatentable over the combination of Smith in view of Brossard, Sato, and Sagawa. In this regard, we adopt the findings and reasoning of the Examiner in regard to the teachings of Smith, Brossard, Sato, and Sagawa that claims 19 and 20 would have been obvious over the Appeal 2010-008387 Application 10/658,975 3 combination. In regard to the above rejections, we also adopt the Examiner's response to the Appellants' arguments, as found on pages 14 to 19 of the Answer. In regard to the Appellants' argument in the Reply Brief that there is no reference in Smith to a game-related event, we note that this argument is directed to the teachings of Smith alone, but the rejections are based on the combined teachings of Smith and Brossard alone or in combination with other references. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this regard, Brossard is relied on for teaching a game- related event. Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of Appellants' contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this record supports the Examiner's conclusion that the subject matter of Appellants' claims 10 to 13, 15 to 18, 21, and 22 is unpatentable over the combination of Seelig in view of Meier. In this regard, we adopt the findings and reasoning of the Examiner in regard to the teachings of Seelig and Meier, and that claims 10 to 13, 15 to 18, 21, and 22 would have been obvious over the combination. We also adopt the Examiner's response to the Appellants' arguments, as found on pages 19 to 20 of the Answer. Appeal 2010-008387 Application 10/658,975 4 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1) (2011). AFFIRMED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation