Appeal No. 2002-0949 Page 3
Application No. 09/514,860
Hachquet 6,050,568 Apr. 18, 2000
(filed Jun. 30, 1998)
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hachquet.
Claims 3, 4, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hachquet in view of Kadlic.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 10) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief (Paper No. 9) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied Hachquet and Kadlic patents,
and to the respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Each of appellants’ independent claims 1 and 5 recites a method comprising
steps of dealing a first hand of initial cards, selecting cards to be held, discarding from
the first hand cards that were not selected to be held and replacing those cards,
determining the poker hand ranking of the resulting cards of the first hand, redisplaying
the initial cards as a second hand, selecting cards of the redisplayed cards to be held,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007