Appeal No. 2002-1022
Application 09/326,934
physical reel format, we see no reason why an artisan seeking to
faithfully recreate such a physical reel game in a video format
would not recreate each and every one of the features visually
seen by the user of the physical reel game as part of the virtual
reel game so that users of the video version of the reel slot
gaming machine would appear to see the same images as they did
when they played the physical reel version of the game. Whether
or not the reel slot games of Andersen or Howard recreated in a
virtual reel format would provide the same benefits urged by
appellants on page 21 of their brief, is of no moment, since
nothing in the claims on appeal requires separate image (symbol,
character or alphanumeric) and border software so that games can
be quickly and readily changed merely by replacing symbol image
formatting (software) for the pre-existing frame software.
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based on Andersen or
Howard in view of Barrie or Marnell II or Falciglia. Following
appellants’ grouping of the claims set forth on page 12 of the
brief, we will also sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 6
through 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) on that same basis.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007