Ex Parte Snow - Page 7



           Appeal No. 2006-2057                                                                     
           Application No. 10/277,482                                                               

                 Appellants' position (brief, page 12) is that neither Awada ('643) nor             
           Ornstein shows an award based on consecutive wins within the play of a single            
           hand.  We note that not withstanding appellant's assertion to the contrary, claim 1      
           does not recite an award based on consecutive wins within the play of a single           
           hand.  As the player can draw additional cards for each segment of the game, up to       
           a maximum of six cards, we find that as a player draws additional cards, the             
           player's hand changes.  What claim 1 recites is that the fourth wager is resolved by     
           paying the player for at least two wins or pushes on consecutively played game           
           segments, not for wins within the play of a single hand as asserted by appellant.        
           Appellant further asserts that there is no teaching in Ornstein of an optional wager     
           on winning multiple consecutive components of a single multi-component game.             
           It is further argued that in Awada ('643), the jackpot component is not related to       
           winning consecutive segments of a multi-segment wagering game.  Appellant adds           
           (brief, pages 12 and 13) that "[n]either Awada nor Ornstein has any teaching of this     
           step.  As neither reference has a teaching of this specific step, it is impossible for   
           the step to be obvious from the combination of references."   Appellant                  
           additionally asserts (13) that there is no basis from Awada or Ornstein that the         
           third wager should be resolved against a paytable.  It is argued, (id.), that there is   
           no teaching, suggestion or motivation for this specific modification.  It is             
           additionally argued (brief, page 15) that claim 1 recites that each player holds six     
           cards, whereas in Awada, each player ultimately holds seven cards.                       
                 From our review of the record, we find that Awada ('643) is directed to a          
           multi-card game for a casino (col. 1, lines 1 and 2).  An object of the invention is to  
           provide a game that includes features that attract Poker player, Blackjack player,       
                                                 7                                                  



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013