Ex Parte Emori

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 12, 2011

10697157 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 12, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
10/697,157 10/31/2003 Kazuki Emori SHO-0034 9101
23353 7590 12/12/2011
RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC
LION BUILDING
1233 20TH STREET N.W., SUITE 501
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
EXAMINER
LIM, SENG HENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3717
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte KAZUKI EMORI
____________________

Appeal 2009-014259
Application 10/697,157
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and WILLIAM
V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-014259
Application 10/697,157
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sakamoto (JP 10-174738 A, pub. Jun. 30, 1998) and claim 2 under
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sakamoto and Corsetti (WO 98/05575, pub.
Feb. 12, 1998)1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
AFFIRM.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A gaming machine comprising:
a cabinet having a front side;
a belly panel releasably connected to the cabinet and operable to
move to a cover state where a portion of the front side of the cabinet is
covered by the belly panel and an exposed state where the portion of
the front side of the cabinet is uncovered when the belly panel is
positioned away from the cabinet;
a symbol row display device configured to display a plurality of
symbols for a player to arrange the symbols;
an operation input device comprising a lever or a button to be
operated by the player to play a game;
an internal lottery device configured to carry out an internal lottery
of the game with a random number;
an illumination device configured to illuminate a tray formed on
the cabinet of the gaming machine;
a transparent member placement part attached to the portion of the
front side of the cabinet; and
a transparent member detachably disposed between the
illumination device and the tray,
wherein, when the belly panel is in the exposed state, the
transparent member placement part is operative to slidably receive the
transparent member and, when the belly panel is in the cover state, the
transparent member is slidably received by the transparent member

1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1 and 3-6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Sakamoto. Ans. 5.
Appeal 2009-014259
Application 10/697,157
3
placement part such that the transparent member is positioned
between the belly panel and the portion of the front side of the cabinet
thereby retaining the transparent member substantially immovable
therebetween.

OPINION
Reviewing the Appeal Brief, Appellant does not explain how any of
the Examiner’s rejections are in error. With respect to independent claim 1,
Appellant merely lists three features of the claim allegedly not taught or
suggested by Sakamoto. Br. 9. Appellant argues that dependent claims 3-6
are allowable “for the reason claim 1 is allowable as well as for the features
they recite” (Br. 11) but does not explain which features of the claims are
not taught or why. With respect to separately rejected dependent claim 2,
Appellant states, “Corsetti teaches a removable insert for coin trays” (Br. 12)
but does not set forth which features of the claim are not taught or why. The
Examiner, on the other hand, makes findings and provides analysis
explaining the basis for each of the rejections. Ans. 3-10.
Statements that merely point out what a claim recites are not
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii); see In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Board
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art).
As such, we affirm the Examiner’s decision regarding claims 1-6.

Appeal 2009-014259
Application 10/697,157
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh