Appeal No. 2002-0105 5
Application No. 09/398,891
As to the question of obviousness, the examiner has not identified what claim
limitation Moody may lack1, much less where Moody teaches or suggests the missing
limitation and why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide
such missing limitation in Moody’s method. Accordingly, the examiner’s alternative theory
that the subject matter of the appealed claims would have been obvious in view of Moody
also cannot be sustained.
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the standing rejection of claims 1-15
as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, as obvious over Moody.
Remand
This case is remanded to the examiner for consideration of the follow matters.
As noted by the examiner, Moody discloses a variety of poker formats. For
example, in discussing Figures 1 and 2, Moody states that “suitable payout schedules”
(i.e., “schedules” in the plural) are used for both paying out a “stud hand” and a “draw
poker hand,” and that alternatively first and second progressive jackpot amounts can be
provided for respective first and second Royal Flush hands achieved in a stud poker hand
and a draw poker hand (column 3, lines 53-61).
1Presumably, the examiner considers that Moody may perhaps lack a teaching of
dealing a first five card hand of poker in a first poker format, and dealing a second five
card hand of poker in a second poker format different from the first poker format.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007