Opinion ID: 209038
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A game board and game, comprising:

Text: (a) a game board having a starting area, a network of irregular paths that lead from the starting area; and a central performing stage located generally centrally on the game board and connected to at least one segment of the network of paths; (b) the network of paths including a series of segments wherein each segment is broken down into increments and wherein at least some of the increments include indicia formed thereon that dictate an action for landing on a particular increment; (c) a series of tokens provided with the game board wherein a token may be assigned to one player and during the course of a game the token is advanced along one or more of the segments of the network of paths; (d) at least one die that is used to determine the number of increments that a player's token can be advanced during the course of the game; (e) a supply of money that during the course of the game is distributed to the players; (f) a deck of “Consequence” cards that are keyed to certain increments on the network of paths, each “Consequence” card having indicia thereon that sets forth a consequence and wherein a player landing on an increment that calls for drawing a consequence card must comply with the directive set forth on the drawn consequence card; (g) a deck of “Band Member” cards with the deck being divided into a series of groups with each group of “Band Member” cards designating members of a band; 2008-1461 2 (h) a series of “Band Equipment” cards with each card designating band equipment; and (i) wherein the object of the game is for each player to advance his or her token along the network of paths and reaches the central stage with a predetermined number of one group of “Band Member” cards and a “Band Equipment” card. The PTO examiner to whom the application was assigned rejected claims 1-11 and 13-15 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Specifically, the examiner rejected claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-15 as obvious in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,998,736 (“Elrod”) and claim 6, which is dependent upon claim 1, as obvious in view of Elrod combined with U.S. Patent No. 6,279,908 (“Hunsberger”). Subsequently, Mr. Bryan appealed the examiner’s rejections to the Board. On appeal, the Board found that Elrod discloses a musical band-themed board game with nearly the exact structure that Mr. Bryan claimed—including decks of labeled game cards and a network of game paths—except for the specific printed matter on the game cards, e.g., cards labeled as “Consequence” cards. Ex parte Bryan, 2008 WL 1057622, at -5. The Board, however, determined that the specific printed matter— e.g., “Consequence”—could not patentably differentiate the claimed structure from the prior art because the printed matter was not functionally related to the claim elements. Regarding dependent claim 6, which adds the limitation of color-coding the game cards, the Board found that Hunsberger teaches color-coding cards to distinguish one deck of cards from another. Id. at -7. The Board therefore sustained the examiner’s decision that Elrod rendered claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-15 obvious, and that Elrod in combination with Hunsberger rendered dependent claim 6 obvious. Id. at . Mr. Bryan timely appeals the Board’s decision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). 2008-1461 3