Ex Parte Moody - Page 4



            Appeal 2007-2810                                                                                 
            Application 09/894,501                                                                           

                   The issues are whether Hoke shows awarding a bonus round and a                            
            “secondary event bonus round game” that adds a secondary bonus round in the                      
            form of an “apparent” game of skill, rather that a true game of skill, to a first level          
            game of chance.                                                                                  

                   B. FACTS                                                                                  
                   The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a preponderance                
            of the evidence.                                                                                 
            1. Hoke shows a slot machine. Should the reels align the player must first shoot                 
            a ball in the mouth of a snake to get the payout (p. 4, col. 1, ll. 11-24, the snake can         
            be seen at the top of Fig. 1).                                                                   
            2. Shooting a ball in a snake’s mouth is a game of skill.                                        
            3. Hoke (p. 4, col. 1, ll. 47-52) discloses: “Should the operator feel it is                     
            necessary to adjust the head 87 to have the open mouth 88 more accurate to the                   
            path of the throw of the ball … [adjust the knob].”                                              

                   C. PRINCIPLES OF LAW                                                                      
                   “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the                
            claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art                  
            reference.”  Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631,                  
            2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).                         




                                                     4                                                       



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013