Ex Parte Amir et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 24, 2013

10569212 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/569,212 02/24/2006 Asaf Amir P-TGN-7152-US 7891
91924 7590 07/25/2013
NAOMI ASSIA
32 Habarzel Street
Tel-Aviv, 6971048
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
AHMED, MASUD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3717
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2013 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ASAF AMIR and ERAN ZION
____________________

Appeal 2011-006622
Application 10/569,212
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, JAMES P. CALVE, and SCOTT A. DANIELS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM
DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006622
Application 10/569,212

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Marcus and Romance Stuck (Web Archive Date Dec 12, 2002); claim 7 as
being unpatentable over Marcus, Romance Stuck and Matthews; and claims
9-13 as being unpatentable over Marcus, Romance Stuck, Matthews and
Postrel.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appellants argue claims 1-6 as a group. App. Br. 3-9. We select
claim 1 as representative of the group, and claims 2-6 stand or fall with
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Examiner has pointed out how each element of the claim 1 is
taught by the references, clearly explained the relevance between what is
taught and what is claimed, and articulated reasons why one of ordinary skill
in the art would have combined the teachings of the prior art to obtain the
game as recited in claim 1 (Final Office Action 2-9; see also Ans. 3-10). In
response, Appellants’ arguments that the references themselves do not
suggest the combination fail to address the Examiner's findings of fact,
analysis, and conclusions of law with the necessary specificity that identifies
an error of either fact or law in the rejection of claim 1 (App. Br. 3-10, see
also Reply Br. 1-3). Notably, there is no dispute that Romance Struck does
teach a game with progressively more intimate categories, and Appellants
have not apprised us of error in the Examiner’s stated reasons for combining
these teachings with Marcus for claim 1. App. Br. 5.
Appeal 2011-006622
Application 10/569,212

3
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact (Ans. 3-5 and 8-10), the
preponderance of which supports the obviousness rejections and the
conclusion of law articulated by the Examiner, and therefore sustain the
rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-6.
Appellants argue that the rejections of claim 7 and claims 9-13 should
be reversed as they depend from claim 1. App. Br. 10. These arguments are
not persuasive for the reasons set forth supra for claim 1, and we sustain the
rejections of claims 7 and 9-13.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-7
and 9-13 is AFFIRMED.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2009).

AFFIRMED

rvb