Ex Parte Voden

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 11, 2010

10884764 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 11, 2010)

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.
10/884,764 07/02/2004 Justin L. Voden 028657-9002-US03 7383
23409 7590 12/13/2010
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP
100 E WISCONSIN AVENUE
Suite 3300
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
ARYANPOUR, MITRA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3711
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2010 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 JUSTIN L. VODEN
____________

Appeal 2010-006052
Application 10/884,764
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, and
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown in the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2010-006052
Application 10/884,764

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Justin L. Voden (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision finally rejecting:
(1) claims 29 and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Tsai ’797 (U.S. Patent No. 6,347,797 B1, issued
Feb. 19, 2002);
(2) claims 22, 25, 36, 37, 49-52, 54, and 55 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tsai ’797 and Neuharth
(U.S. Patent No. 4,305,581, issued Dec. 15, 1981);
(3) claims 31-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tsai ’797 and Tsai ’564 (U.S. Patent No.
6,155,564, issued Dec. 5, 2000);
(4) claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Tsai ’797 and Brown (U.S. Patent No. 5,630,760, issued
May 20, 1997); and
(5) claims 53 and 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tsai ’797, Neuharth, and Brown.

Appellant cancelled claims 1-21, 23, 24, 28, 30, 35, and 39-48. The
Examiner withdrew the rejections of claims 26, 27, and 34.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

2 In the Final Office Action mailed February 24, 2009, the Examiner rejected
claims 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tsai ’797,
Neuharth, and any one of Blaschke (U.S. Patent No. 2,174,613, issued Oct.
3, 1939), Tsai ’939 (U.S. Patent No. 6,349,939 B1, issued Feb. 26, 2002),
and Tsai ’564. The Examiner also rejected claim 34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over any one of the combination of Tsai ’797 and
Blaschke, the combination of Tsai ’797 and Tsai ’939, and the combination
of Tsai ’797, Neuharth, and Tsai ’564. On page 19 of the Examiner’s
Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejections of claims 26, 27, and 34.
We presume that, upon the Examiner’s withdrawal of the rejection of claims
26, 27, and 34, the Examiner meant to object to claims 26, 27, and 34 as
dependent upon a rejected base claim, but otherwise indicate allowability of
those claims.
Appeal 2010-006052
Application 10/884,764

3
The Invention
The claims on appeal relate to a rotary game table having a
combination game table which includes an air powered hockey surface
disposed on one side and one of a pool table surface, a game table surface, a
table soccer game surface, and a ping-pong surface disposed on the other
side thereof. The combination game table also includes two end frame
members, two lengthwise frame members, two side support members, and at
least one cross member, wherein the at least one cross member is terminated
by one of the two side support members on each of its ends. The
combination game table is pivotally supported on each end by one of the two
side support members.
Portions of claims 22, 29, 49, and 57, reproduced below, are
representative of the subject matter on appeal.
22. A rotary game table comprising:
. . . .; and
a pair of support latches being contained in
at least one of said two side support members, said
pair of support latches preventing said combination
game table from rotating, wherein said pair of
support latches comprise a latch lever and a
support link, both the latch lever and the support
link being pivotally retained by a latch frame.

29. A rotary game table comprising:
. . . .;
a pair of support latches contained in at least
one of the two side support members, the pair of
support latches preventing the combination game
table from rotating;
at least one ball tray attached to at least one
of the side support members to retain a plurality of
billiard balls therein; and
Appeal 2010-006052
Application 10/884,764

4
wherein at least one of the two side support
members is further configured to retain a plurality
of game accessories.

49. A rotary game table comprising:
. . . .; and
at least one support latch contained in at
least one of the two side support members, the at
least one support latch integrally comprising a
latch lever and a support link to prevent the
combination game table from rotating, wherein the
latch lever is pivotally adjusted between a locked
position and a retracted position, the latch lever
further being pivotally connected to the support
link.

57. A rotary game table comprising:
. . . .;
a pair of support latches contained in at least
one of the two side support members, the pair of
support latches preventing the combination game
table from rotating; and
at least one ball tray having a plurality of
vertical racks attached to at least one of the side
support members and constructed to retain a
plurality of billiard balls in each vertical rack.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART

OPINION
Issues
The determinative issues in this appeal are:
(1) Did the Examiner err in finding that Tsai ’797 discloses at least
one ball tray attached to at least one of the side support members to retain a
Appeal 2010-006052
Application 10/884,764

5
plurality of billiard balls therein and wherein at least one of the side support
members is further configured to retain a plurality of game accessories as
recited in claim 29?
(2) Did the Examiner err in finding that Tsai ’797 discloses at least
one ball tray having a plurality of vertical racks attached to at least one of
the side support members and constructed to retain a plurality of billiard
balls in each vertical rack as recited in claim 57?
(3) Did the Examiner err in concluding that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have modified the game table of Tsai ’797 by the teachings of
Neuharth to include a latch lever and a support link both pivotally retained
by a latch frame as recited in claim 22?
(4) Did the Examiner err in concluding that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the game table of Tsai
’797 by the teachings of Neuharth to include a latch lever pivotally
connected to a support link as recited in claim 49?
(5) Did the Examiner err in concluding that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the game table of Tsai
’797 by the teachings of Tsai ’564 so that the game accessories include a
plurality of pool cue racks as recited in claim 31, a rack holder as recited in
claim 32, and at least one paddle holder as recited in claim 33, all attached to
one of the side support members?
Appeal 2010-006052
Application 10/884,764

6
Analysis
Claims 29 and 57 rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Tsai ’797

Issue 1 – Claim 29
Appellant contends that claim 29 is not anticipated by Tsai ’797
because while Tsai ’797 may show at least one ball tray configured to retain
a plurality of billiard balls, Tsai ’797 does not teach that a side support
member is further configured to retain a plurality of game accessories as is
recited in claim 29. App. Br. 6. Appellant also contends that the Examiner
merely recited the same elements, i.e., ball collecting boxes 60, 89, or 98, to
teach both limitations in claim 29, namely, at least one ball tray attached to
at least one of the two side support members to retain a plurality of billiard
balls therein and at least one of the side support members further configured
to retain a plurality of game accessories. Id. Appellant also contends that
the Examiner’s argument, set forth on page 19 in the Response to Argument
section of the Examiner’s Answer, (i.e., that “[c]laim 29 merely require[s] a
holder for the billiard ball[s] and a holder for another game accessory which
can be the ball or balls for one of the other games”), is without merit because
the claim recites that the at least one side support member is further
configured to retain a plurality of game accessories and Tsai ‘797 only
discloses ball collecting box 60 or 89 is configured to collect a single game
ball 22 during football play. Reply Br. 2-3.
The Examiner’s position is that either ball collecting box 89 or 98 of
Figure 11 or ball collecting box 114 of Figure 14 meets the claim limitation
of at least one ball tray attached to at least one of the side support members
to retain a plurality of billiard balls therein. Ans. 4. The Examiner posits
Appeal 2010-006052
Application 10/884,764

7
that at least one of the side support members (either one of transverse end
boards 34) of Tsai ’797 is further configured to retain a plurality of game
accessories because any one of the other ball collecting boxes 60, 89, and 98
is capable of performing the intended use of retaining a plurality of game
accessories. Id. In the Response to Argument section of the Examiner’s
Answer, the Examiner posits that Figure 11 shows ball collecting boxes 89
and 98 with one meeting the structure of the at least one ball tray and the
other meeting the claim language of claim 29 that at least one of the side
support members is further configured to retain a plurality of game
accessories. Ans. 19.
Tsai ’797 discloses a game table 20 which includes a table body 40
rotatable on a table frame 30. See Fig. 5 to 6 and 10 to 11 and col. 2, ll. 19-
22. The table body 40 has top and bottom faces which can have different
game surfaces thereon such as a table football surface A, a table hockey
surface B, and a billiards surface D. See Figs. 2, 6, and 11, col. 2, ll. 22-24
and ll. 50-51, and col. 4, l. 53. The game table frame 30 includes two pairs
of parallel table legs 32, two end boards 34, and two connecting slats 35
such that the top ends of each pair of table legs 32 are connected by a
transverse end board 34 and the two pairs of table legs 32 are interconnected
by the slats 35. Col. 2, ll. 27-31. The table body 40 has top and bottom
faces which can have different game surfaces thereon such as a table football
surface A, a table hockey surface B, and a billiards surface D. See Figs. 2, 6,
and 11, col. 2, ll. 22-24 and ll. 50-51, and col. 4, l. 53. In order to prevent
the game table 20 from rotating during game play, each corner of the game
table 20 may have a locating member 70 which includes a fixing member in
a shaft seat 77 through the end board 34 and into a socket 74 in an insertion
Appeal 2010-006052
Application 10/884,764

8
hole 75 in the end wall of the peripheral frame 41 of the table body 40. See
Fig. 4 and col. 3, ll. 30-50. The end boards 34 may have any of ball
collecting boxes 60, 89, 98, or 114 attached thereto in order to aid in game
play. See Figs. 2, 5, 6, 9-11, and 14.
We agree with the Examiner that any one of the ball collecting boxes
89, 98, and 114 of Tsai ’797 meets the claim limitation of at least one ball
tray attached to at least one side support member to retain a plurality of
billiard balls, and any one of the ball collecting boxes 60, 89, or 98, not
acting as the at least one ball tray, is capable of retaining a plurality of game
accessories so as to meet the claim language of one of the two side support
members being further configured to retain a plurality of game accessories
as recited in claim 29. Figure 11 clearly shows both ball collecting box 89
and ball collecting box 98 attached to the side support member 34 so that
either one can be considered to be the structure of the ball tray and the other
represents the side support member being further configured to retain a
plurality of game accessories. As such, the Examiner has not cited the same
elements to teach both limitations as argued by Appellant. We are also not
persuaded by Appellant’s argument that ball collecting box 89 only collects
a single ball 22 during football play because ball collecting box 89 is large
enough to be capable of collecting more than one ball. It is entirely possible
that users of the game table might have extra game balls held in reserve in
case one ball gets lost and therefore, the users of the game table may use ball
collecting box 89 to hold the extra game balls, while using only one game
ball to play the game (i.e., having the extra balls collect in the ball collecting
tray 89 so as not to lose track of where the extra balls are). It is also possible
that children using the game table may play the football game with more
Appeal 2010-006052
Application 10/884,764

9
than one game ball and thus, more than one ball may collect in ball
collecting box 89 as it is large enough to hold more than one ball.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 29 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Tsai ’797.
Issue 2 – Claim 57
Appellant contends that claim 57 is not anticipated by Tsai ’797,
because while Tsai ’797 may teach a plurality of ball collecting boxes 60,
89, and 98 that could be considered to constitute a ball tray, Tsai ’797 does
not teach that the at least one ball tray has a plurality of vertical racks
attached to at least one side support member and constructed to retain a
plurality of billiard balls in each vertical rack as is specifically recited in
claim 57. Reply Br. 3. Rather, Appellant contends that the ball collecting
boxes 60, 89, or 98 are just boxes with no indication of how billiard balls are
retained therein and are not akin to Appellant’s ball tray 98 as shown in
Figure 12 which advantageously retains a plurality of billiard balls in each
vertical rack of the ball tray 98. As such, Appellant asserts that Tsai ’797
fails to teach each and every limitation of claim 57 and thus does not
anticipate the claim. Id.
The Examiner’s position is that Tsai ’797 anticipates claim 57 because
any of ball collecting boxes 89, 98, or 114 meet the claim limitation of at
least one ball tray having a plurality of vertical racks attached to at least one
of the side support members and constructed to retain a plurality of billiard
balls in each vertical rack. Ans. 5. The Examiner posits that a vertical rack
is a framework, stand, or grating on or in which articles can be placed and
the ball holders 89, 98, or 114 of Tsai ’797 are vertical racks that are capable
of holding balls to meet the claim limitation of vertical racks. Id.
Appeal 2010-006052
Application 10/884,764

10
Tsai ’797 has been discussed supra.
We agree with Appellant that none of the ball collecting boxes 89, 98,
or 114 of Tsai ’797 as cited by the Examiner meet the claim recitation of at
least one ball tray having a plurality of vertical racks attached to at least one
of the side support members and constructed to retain a plurality of billiard
balls in each vertical rack. Although any of ball collecting boxes 89, 98, or
114 of Tsai ’797 may be considered to be at least one ball tray, none of the
ball collecting boxes 89, 98, or 114 of Tsai ’797 have a plurality of vertical
racks. The Examiner merely stated that the ball collecting boxes 89, 98, or
114 of Tsai ’797 are considered to be vertical racks, but did not make any
findings concerning whether the ball collecting boxes 89, 98, or 114 of Tsai
’797 included a plurality of vertical racks, as set forth in claim 57.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 57
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Tsai ’797.
Claims 22, 25, 36, 37, 49-52, 54, and 55 rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tsai ’797 and Neuharth

Issue 3 – Claim 22
Appellant contends that Neuharth fails to teach or suggest that the
alleged latch lever (short leg 34a of L-shaped bracket 34) and support link
(longer leg 34a of L-shaped bracket 34) are pivotally retained by a latch
frame as specifically called for in claim 22. App. Br. 8. Appellant also
contends that the L-shaped bracket 34 of Neuharth is not pivotally retained
at all, but instead is fixed in a notch 37 when in use to prevent rotation of the
combined rectangular frame and playing surface assembly 10 and is stored
in a pocket or seat 46 when the combined rectangular frame and playing
surface assembly 10 is to be moved to its vertical position as shown in
Appeal 2010-006052
Application 10/884,764

11
Figure 2 of Neuharth. Id. Thus, Appellant contends that the combination of
Tsai ’797 and Neuharth does not teach or suggest each and every limitation
of claim 22.
The Examiner’s position is the Tsai ’797 discloses the game table of
claim 22 substantially as claimed, except that Tsai ’797 does not disclose
that its pair of support latches 70 have a latch lever and support link both of
which are pivotally retained by a latch frame. Ans. 6-7. The Examiner
posits that Neuharth discloses a combination game table having a latch lever
(short leg 34a of L-shaped member 34) pivotally connected by detachable
fastener 38 to the at least one support frame (post 24c of pedestal 24) and a
support link (longer leg 34b of L-shaped member 34) connected to the latch
lever (34a) and constructed to operatively engage the table to prevent
rotation thereof. Ans. 7. The Examiner also posits that Neuharth discloses a
latch frame (combination of notch 37 and pocket or seat 46) attached to the
at least one support (post 24c of pedestal 24) and latch link (detachable
fastener 38) having a first end pivotally connected to the latch frame (37)
and a second end pivotally connected to the support link (34b). Ans. 7-8.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to have provided the game table of Tsai ’797 with the latch
lever and support link of Neuharth to accommodate adjustments in the
position of the game table surface so that the game table assembly may have
a truly horizontal position extending between the side support members.
Tsai ’797 has been discussed supra.
Neuharth discloses a billiards table pivotable from a horizontal
playing position to a vertical position for storage to take up less space. Col.
1, ll. 4-9. The billiards table includes a rectangular frame and playing
Appeal 2010-006052
Application 10/884,764

12
surface assembly 10 made up of a rectangular frame 12 and a rectangular
playing surface 14. Col. 1, l. 67 through col. 2, l. 2. The frame and playing
surface assembly 10 is supported above the ground by a pedestal means 20.
Col. 2, ll. 11-13. The pedestal means 20 includes spaced pedestals 22, 24
each of which have spaced feet 22a, 22b and 24a, 24b, respectively, and a
central post 22c, 24c. Col. 2, ll. 14-20. Each of the pedestals 22, 24 is
provided with a bracket means in the form of a pair of L-shaped brackets 34,
36 used to support the table firmly in a horizontal position. Col. 2, ll. 40-45.
Each of the L-shaped brackets 34, 36 includes a short leg 34a, 36a,
respectively, and a long leg 34b, 36b, respectively. Col. 2, ll. 45-47. The
pedestals 22, 24 are notched at 37 to receive the short leg 34a, 36a and a
detachable fastener 38 is utilized to secure the bracket 34, 36 in place on the
post 22c, 24c of the pedestal 22, 24, respectively. Col. 2, ll. 47-52. Each of
the brackets 34, 36 is provided with an adjustable screw to engage the
undersurface of the frame 12 to accommodate adjustments in the position of
assembly 10 for truly horizontal positioning. Col. 2, ll. 53-60. Each
pedestal 22, 24 has a pocket or seat 46 for reception of the brackets 34, 36
when the table is to be moved to the vertical position. Col. 2, l. 64 through
col. 3, l. 3.
In rejecting claims as unpatentable on the basis of obviousness, the
Examiner must provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l.
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 US. 398, 418 (2007). In making a rejection, the
Examiner has the initial duty of supplying the requisite factual basis and
may not, because of doubts that the invention is patentable, resort to
speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply
Appeal 2010-006052
Application 10/884,764

13
deficiencies in the factual basis. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017
(CCPA 1967).
We agree with Appellant that it would not have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to have combined Tsai ’797 and Neuharth. We
find that the Examiner has failed to set forth any articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning in order to support the obviousness rejection
based upon Tsai ’797 and Neuharth. Indeed, the Examiner initially found
that locating members of Tsai ’797 constituted the pair of support latches
recited in independent claim 22. The Examiner also found that Tsai ’797
does not disclose latch levers and support links, but that latch levers and
support links are disclosed by Neuharth. However, the Examiner failed to
articulate whether the support latches 70 of the game table of Tsai ’797 are
being modified to have the latch lever 34a and support link 34b of Neuharth
or whether the pair of support latches 70 of Tsai ’797 are being replaced
with support latches (L-shaped brackets 34, 36) having latch levers 34a, 36a
and support links 34b, 36b of Neuharth. Regardless, we see no rational
underpinning for the reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would
consider modifying Tsai ’797 by the teachings of Neuharth as proposed by
the Examiner.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 22,
25, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tsai ’797 and
Neuharth. Since the rejection of claim 56 is based on the same erroneous
obviousness determinations as presented for independent claim 22, we also
do not sustain the rejection of claim 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tsai ’797, Neuharth, and Brown.

Appeal 2010-006052
Application 10/884,764

14
Issue 4 – Claim 49
Appellant contends that, in setting forth the rejection for claim 49, the
Examiner simply copied the rejection for claim 22, but the limitations of
claim 22 and claim 49 are not identical so that the Examiner has failed to
address each and every claim limitation of claim 49. App. Br. 9. More
particularly, Appellant contends that claim 49 calls for the latch lever to be
pivotally adjusted between a locked position and a retracted position and the
latch lever being pivotally connected to the support link, which limitations
are not set forth in claim 22 and which limitations the Examiner did not
specifically address. Id. Appellant also contends that Neuharth fails to
teach or suggest a latch lever that is pivotally adjusted between locked and
retracted positions and that is pivotally connected to the support link as
recited in claim 49. Id. Appellant also contends that the L-shaped bracket
34 of Neuharth is not pivotally retained in any way, but instead is fixed in a
notch 37 when in use to prevent rotation of the playing surface assembly 10
and removed and stored in pocket or seat 46 when the playing surface
assembly 10 is to be rotated to its vertical storage position. Id.
The Examiner’s position is the same as stated supra with respect to
claim 22.
Tsai ’797 and Neuharth have been discussed supra.
For the same reasons as stated supra with respect to claim 22, we
agree with Appellant that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
modified Tsai ’797 by the teachings of Neuharth because the Examiner has
not set forth an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning as to
why such a modification would be obvious. Additionally, the Examiner has
failed to make any findings as to whether Neuharth discloses that the latch
Appeal 2010-006052
Application 10/884,764

15
lever (34a) is pivotally connected to the support link (34b) as is recited in
claim 49 and thus, the Examiner’s rejection fails to set forth a sufficient
factual basis to support a conclusion that the subject matter of claim 49
would have been obvious.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 49-
52, 54, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tsai ’797 and
Neuharth. Since the rejection of claim 53 is based on the same erroneous
obviousness determination as presented for independent claim 49, we also
do not sustain the rejection of claim 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tsai ’797, Neuharth, and Brown.
Claims 31-33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Tsai ’797 and Tsai ’564

Issue 5 – Claims 31-33
Appellant contends that Tsai ’564 does not disclose that the entire
base of side support members is used as storage for game pieces as alleged
by the Examiner, but that at most, Tsai ’564 teaches a store box 15 which
may store desired stuff. App. Br. 12. Appellant also contends that nowhere
does Tsai ’564 teach or suggest that a plurality of pool cue racks, a rack
holder, or a paddle holder may be attached to one of the side support
members of a rotary game table as recited in claims 31-33, respectively. Id.
Appellant also contends that the open store box 15 of Tsai ’564 is quite
different than what is claimed in claims 31-33 because the claims call for a
specific rack or holder structure attached to one of the side support members.
Reply Br. 7. Appellant also contends that Tsai ’564 fails to teach or suggest
any specificity in its general description of store box 15 so as to meet the
recitation that at least one of the claimed side support members is configured
Appeal 2010-006052
Application 10/884,764

16
to retain the plurality of pool cue racks of claim 31, the rack holder of claim
32, or the paddle holder of claim 33. Id. Appellant also contends that the
Examiner has provided no reasoning for converting the store box 15 under
the table to racks attached to one of the side support members of the table as
claimed. Id.
The Examiner’s position is that Tsai ’797 discloses the invention of
claims 31-33 substantially as claimed, except that “Tsai ’797 does not
disclose expressly the inclusion of additional holders for holding alternative
types of game accessories.” Ans. 14. The Examiner posits that Tsai ’564
teaches a rotary game table having a base or side support members and cross
members which are used as storage for game pieces with the base being
“large enough to accommodate various shape and size holders and the
accessories.” Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art “to have provided a storage box having
holders [as taught by Tsai ’564] for the support base of Tsai’797 the
motivation being so various other types of game pieces could be
conveniently stored when not in use.” (Ans. 14-15)
Tsai ’797 was discussed supra.
Tsai ’939 discloses a game table 20 which includes a table frame 30
and two table bodies 40, 60. Col. 2, ll. 37-38. Each of the table bodies 40,
60 can be used alone by being laid over top of and engaging the table frame
30 or used together by being overlapped with the bottommost one of the
table bodies 40, 60 engaging the table frame 30. See Figs. 2-4, 6, 7, 10 and
12 and col. 2, ll. 38-44. Table body 40 has a football game face A on one
side and a hockey game face B on the other side. See Figs. 3 and 6 and col.
2, ll. 64-66. An air blower 57 is fixedly disposed in a short side of the table
Appeal 2010-006052
Application 10/884,764

17
body 40 for use with the hockey game face B. Col. 3, ll. 24-25. The air
blower 57 is not in a space between the football game face A and the hockey
game face B. See Fig. 3.
The Examiner has not pointed out how the modification of Tsai ’797
to include the store box 15 of Tsai ’564 would meet the claim language of a
plurality of pool cue racks, a rack holder, and a paddle holder all attached to
one of the side support members of a rotary game table as recited in claims
31-33, respectively. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 31-33 thus does not
rest on a sufficient factual basis and cannot stand.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 31-
33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tsai ’797 and Tsai ’564.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in finding Tsai ’797 discloses both at least
one ball tray attached to at least one of the side support members to retain a
plurality of billiard balls therein and wherein at least one of the side support
members is further configured to retain a plurality of game accessories as
recited in claim 29.
The Examiner erred in finding Tsai ’797 discloses at least one ball
tray having a plurality of vertical racks attached to at least one of the side
support members and constructed to retain a plurality of billiard balls in each
vertical rack as recited in claim 57.
The Examiner erred in concluding that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have modified the game table of Tsai ’797 by the teachings of
Neuharth to include a latch lever and a support link both pivotally retained
by a latch frame as recited in claim 22.
Appeal 2010-006052
Application 10/884,764

18
The Examiner erred in concluding that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the game table of Tsai ’797 by the
teachings of Neuharth to include a latch lever pivotally connected to a
support link as recited in claim 49.
The Examiner erred in concluding that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the game table of Tsai ’797 by the
teachings of Tsai ’564 so that the game accessories include a plurality of
pool cue racks as recited in claim 31, a rack holder as recited in claim 32,
and at least one paddle holder as recited in claim 33, each attached to one of
the side support members.

DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Tsai ’797.
We reverse the rejections of: claim 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Tsai ’797; claims 22, 25, 36, 37, 49-52, 54, and 55 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tsai ’797 and Neuharth; claims 31-33
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tsai ’797 and Tsai ’564;
claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tsai ’797 and
Brown; and claims 53 and 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Tsai ’797, Neuharth, and Brown.
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)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Appeal 2010-006052
Application 10/884,764

19

Klh

MICHAEL, BEST & FRIEDRICH, LLP
100 E. WISCONSIN AVENUE
SUITE 3300
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202