Appeal No. 1998-0931 Page 7
Application No. 08/139,619
[sic, agent terminals]. Additionally, we infer from the
examiner's statements (answer, pages 5, 7, and 8) that the
examiner also takes the position that Hedges does not disclose
a plurality of receivers which are non-interactive with
players and are limited to display of information regarding
the progress of the game.
To overcome these deficiencies of Hedges, the examiner
(answer, page 5) turns to Tillery for teachings of "a
plurality of the terminal agents (30) in data communication
with the central computer system (10)." According to the
examiner (id.) "Tillery also teaches a plurality of receivers
(50) being non-interactive with players and limited to display
of the information respecting of progress of the game." The
examiner concludes (id.) that it would have been obvious "to
have provided a plurality of terminal agents [sic] as taught
by Tillery to the wagering device of Hedges so as to allow a
plurality of player[s] to participat[e] in wagering game from
the hotel room." Moreover, the examiner asserts (answer,
pages 8 and 9) that the recitation "'receivers being non-
interactive with players' is so broad that it reads on each of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007