Appeal No. 2006-2057
Application No. 10/277,482
The examiner's position (answer, page 3) is that Awada ('550) and de Keller
"are applied to teach resolving a wager by referring to a paytable would have been
obvious." With respect to Awada ('550), the examiner finds (answer, page 4) that
“viewing what is shown by ‘643 and his third wager alone, he compares the
player’s cards to the dealer cards in order to resolve the wagers.” With respect to
de Keller, the examiner finds (id.) that
In modern casinos the game of poker takes one of three forms: “live”
poker where players compete against one another but the games are
controlled and supervised by a house dealer-the games are not a
contest between the players and the casino-and the casino imposes a
levy either in the form of a participation fee or as a percentage of
winning hands; electronic video style machines offering Draw Poker;
and poker played as a bankers game either where the game involves
players in contest with the dealer’s hand or where the object is for the
players to obtain a good poker hand, in both cases the paytable is
structured in such a way that the pay-offs are not based on the true
mathematical odds thereby resulting in the casinos enjoying a
favourable advantage.
(Quoting from col. 1, lines 16-29 of de Keller).
Appellant asserts (brief, page 18) that even with the combination of two
additional references, the failures of the teachings of Awada ('643) and Ornstein
are not corrected. It is argued that in Awada ('550), all three games are played
against a paytable. It is further argued (brief, page 19) that the addition of de
Keller adds the complexity of two wagers, one against a paytable and one against
the other players, with no player versus dealer competition. It is argued (id.) that
“[e]very reference added to the rejection adds complexity to the combination of
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013