Appeal No. 2002-1407
Application 09/157,995
in support of the rejections, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No.
17, filed November 28, 2001) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
The examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 4 through 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bally in view of
Marsh (final rejection, page 2) recognizes that Bally discloses a
gaming device and method of conducting a game of chance including
placing a wager to enable initiation of play on a primary gaming
unit, displaying an indicia set randomly selected from a
plurality of possible indicia and wherein at least one of said
indicia of the displayed set is a winning indicia resulting in
crediting of winnings from the primary game, and providing at
least one opportunity for the player to change those winnings
through play on a secondary “Double or Nothing” gaming unit
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007