Appeal No. 2002-1407
Application 09/157,995
giving the player a 50/50 chance to double the winnings from the
primary gaming unit or lose it all. What the examiner finds
lacking in Bally with respect to the independent claims on appeal
(i.e., claims 1, 14 and 17) is any disclosure or teaching of
wagering “less than all of said winnings” or prize from the
primary gaming unit.
To account for the above difference, the examiner turns to
Marsh urging that it teaches a gaming unit and method of
conducting a game of chance wherein a wager is made and a player
has the opportunity to change the winnings of one game by
wagering less than all of the primary winnings on a second game
or prize opportunity in a game of the same type (lines 41-61),
thereby allowing continuous play of the game as long as the
player has credits to wager. From the combined teachings of
Bally and Marsh, the examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellant’s invention “to modify the invention of Bally with the
invention of Marsh by adding the feature of wagering less than
all of the primary winnings in order to increase the players’
chances of winning” (final rejection, page 3).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007