Appeal No. 2006-2057
Application No. 10/277,482
references, without any clear motivation of how the references should be
combined in the absence of direction from the claims on Appeal”.
At the outset, we make reference to our findings, supra, with respect to the
teachings and suggestions of Awada ('643) and Ornstein as applied to claim 1. As
we found, supra, the teachings and suggestions of Awada ('643) and Ornstein
would have suggested all of the limitations of claim 1, with the exception of the
third segment being resolved against a paytable. Although paytables are known,
we found no suggestion to single out the third game segment of Poker in Awada
('643) to be resolved using a paytable.
From our review of Awada ('550), we agree with the examiner (answer, page
4) that Awada ('550) describes a three part wagering game where a paytable is used
to resolve the poker wagers (col. 2, lines 9-27). From the disclosure of Awada
('550) we agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to resolve the
third game segment (Poker wager) of Awada ('643) using a paytable in view of the
teaching of Awada ('550) that in a three segment casino game, the Poker segments
should be resolved against a paytable. In addition, from the disclosure of de
Keller, quoted supra, that in Poker games, the wager can be resolved against a
dealer's hand or against a paytable based on the player obtaining a good Poker
hand (col. 1, lines 16-29), we find that an artisan would have been motivated to
have resolve the Poker hand (third game segment) against a paytable. We note
that both Awada ('550) and de Keller describe resolving a Poker wager using a pay
table. In Awada ('643), the third segment is a Poker wager. Because both Awada
('550) and de Keller teach resolving a Poker wager using a paytable, we hold that
an artisan would have considered it obvious to have resolved the third game
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013