Appeal 2006-2836
Application 09/923,673
OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejections.
The Appellants state that the claims stand or fall together (Br. 6).
Even though an additional reference is applied to some of the dependent
claims, the Appellants do not argue the separate patentability of those claims
(Br. 11-12). We therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Gatley states that there would be considerable attraction to slot
machine players if a slot machine (which Gatley calls a fruit machine)
provides a choice of games in one machine cabinet (p. 1, ll. 32-34). Gatley’s
slot machine “comprises a machine cabinet carrying on one side thereof two
game display units adapted to display first and second independently
playable fruit machine games” (p. 2, ll. 5-8). A player can play two games
simultaneously on one machine (p. 3, ll. 8-17). “The machine may have a
common or independent controller for implementing the two machine
games” (p. 3, ll. 1-2). “A common credit register may be provided, the
arrangement being such that credits on the register may be utilised by the
player to play either game. Similarly, a common credit register may be
provided to record winnings not yet taken, the winnings resulting from
games played on either game module” (p. 2, ll. 32-36).
Piechowiak discloses a slot machine having multiple paylines (col. 9,
ll. 13-25).
Itkis discloses a distributed game network comprising a master game
device used by a game operator and a number of slave game devices used by
players (col. 1, ll. 41-43; col. 2, ll. 63-65). “The master and slave game
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013