Ex Parte Haga et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 28, 2007

10310356 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 28, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte MATTHEW HOWARD HAGA
and DANNY E. SWINDLER
________________

Appeal 2007-2560
Application 10/310,356
Technology Center 1700
________________

Decided: August 28, 2007
________________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and
PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 13-16. Claim 13 is
illustrative:
13. An apparatus for applying a cover to a gaming ticket substrate, the
apparatus including:

(a) a cover mechanism for advancing a cover material along a
cover material path to an applicator and for advancing a gaming

Appeal 2007-2560
Application 10/310,356

ticket substrate along a ticket substrate path to the applicator;
and

(b) wherein the cover material path and the ticket substrate path
cross at a crossing point removed from the location of the
applicator.

The Examiner relies upon the following reference in the rejection of
the appealed claims:
Shingu US 5,824,178 Oct. 20, 1998
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an apparatus for applying
a cover to a gaming ticket substrate wherein the path of the cover material
and the path of the ticket substrate cross at a crossing point that is removed
from the location of the applicator.
Appealed claims 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Shingu.
Appellants have not set forth an argument that is reasonably specific
to any particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, all the appealed claims
stand or fall together with claim 13.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we fully concur with the Examiner that the patent to
Shingu describes the claimed subject matter within the meaning of § 102.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons set
forth in the Answer, and we add the following for emphasis only.
The sole argument advanced by Appellants is that Shingu does not
describe material paths which cross at a point. On the other hand, it is the
Examiner’s position that materials 11 and 12 of the reference, when
delivered to the upper and lower shelves of shelf 6, proceed on paths that
2
Appeal 2007-2560
Application 10/310,356

cross at the pivot point of mechanism 5. Hence, the dispositive issue on
appeal is whether the paths taken by sheets of material 11 and 12 of Shingu
to shelf 6 in fact cross at a crossing point, as presently claimed. Our review
of the reference and the language of the appealed claims finds us in
agreement with the Examiner’s position.
As acknowledged by Appellants, “[i]f one were to draw a line
representing the path of sheet material along table B, through mechanism 5,
and onto lower table 6, and then draw a second line representing the path of
sheet material along table B, through mechanism 5, and onto upper table 6,
the two paths would make a “Y” shape” (principal Br. 6, first para.).
Consequently, we find it reasonable to conclude that the paths of the two
sheets, represented by the upper angled portions of the letter “Y,” cross at
that point where they converge at the vertical segment of the letter “Y.”
Hence, we find no error in the Examiner’s position that the paths of the two
reference sheets cross at the pivot point of mechanism 5. Furthermore, the
paths of the reference sheets are lines, or two-dimensional planes, that
extend infinitely and cross at the pivot point of mechanism 5. Likewise, the
presently claimed paths of the cover material and ticket substrate are not
concrete, structural elements of the claimed apparatus, but merely abstract
lines or planes that intersect at a crossing point. Accordingly, we find no
patentable distinction between apparatus within the scope of the appealed
claims and the apparatus fairly described by Shingu.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
3
Appeal 2007-2560
Application 10/310,356

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

clj

The Culbertson Group, P.C.
1114 Lost Creek Blvd.
Suite 420
Austin, TX 78746

4