Appeal No. 2002-0949 Page 6
Application No. 09/514,860
modify the Hachquet method to arrive at the claimed method, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 5, or claims 2 and 6 which depend
therefrom, as being unpatentable over Hachquet.
As for the examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 7 and 8, which require the same
steps discussed supra with respect to claims 1 and 5, as being unpatentable over
Hachquet in view of Kadlic, Kadlic’s teaching of displaying four or more poker hands for
play on a video poker machine does nothing to cure the above-noted deficiency of
Hachquet. It follows that we also shall not sustain this rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007