Appeal No. 2001-1875
Application No. 09/193,257
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determination that
the examiner's above-noted rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
will not be sustained. Our reasons follow.
In considering the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4,
5, 7, 9 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we are in agreement
with the examiner that Wood teaches (col. 1, line 67 - col. 2,
line 22) a method of playing a multi-draw poker-like game
where first and second payout tables are used (i.e., a first
table having first posted odds associated with a fixed hand
ranking for the first and second hands and a second table
having a second set of posted odds associated with the fixed
hand ranking for the third hand). However, after assessing
the collective teachings of the applied prior art, we find
that we are in full agreement with appellants' position that
the 2nd Chance poker game described in Wood and the "Pokino"
card game described in Scarne's Encyclopedia of Card Games are
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007