Appeal 2007-2174
Application 10/751,614
The only requirement that may be seen as structural is “the
transponder transmitting said game denominational value and said
identification in response to a received signal,” but the ability to transmit the
denominational value and the identification in response to a received signal
is a property of the transponder. There is no requirement in the claim that
the transponder actually send the information, as that would be drawn to a
method of using the chip, and does not further limit the structure of the
individual chip.
The issue thus becomes what is the proper interpretation of an
“identification” differentiating “the first class gaming chip from at least one
other class of gaming chips.” According to the Examiner, “class of chip”
could be read broadly to include a casino designation (Answer 4).
Appellants assert that “[a]t all times during the prosecution of this case, this
term has meant a promotional or side-bet, such as for example, a progressive
type wager. For the Board to allow the Examiner to change the definition of
terms at this state would be unfair.” (Reply Br.1 2.)
Claims are interpreted in light of the specification, claim language,
and other claims, and such interpretation is a matter of law and controls the
remainder of the decisional process. See, e.g., Panduit Corp. v. Dennison
Manufacturing Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567-68, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). The Specification teaches that the chip “may have either a game
denominational or a non-denominational value. . . . A non-denominational
value can be for promotional purposes . . . .” (Specification 7-8.) The
Specification teaches further:
1 All references to “Reply Br.” are to the Reply Brief to the Examiner’s
Answer dated November 22, 2006.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013