Appeal No. 2002-1407
Application 09/157,995
obvious unless the applied prior art suggested the desirability
of the modification. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221
USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir 1984). Here, the Bally advertisement
emphasizes that the 50/50 chance to double up on each spin of the
“Double or Nothing” slot machine therein is “attractive to big-
win slot machine players” and provides “a tantalizing teaser that
ensures continuous play” and big earnings for the casino. Thus,
we share appellant’s view expressed on pages 8-11 of the brief
that the potential rewards, as well as the risks, associated with
each spin of the auxiliary double-or-nothing reel in Bally are
significant, and are integral aspects of the operation and appeal
of the slot machine gaming device in the Bally advertisement.
The high stakes/high risk thrill involved in the play of Bally’s
secondary bonus game defines the very essence of the Bally
disclosure and it is this aspect of the game that is
predominately marketed as a unique gaming feature which will
attract players.
Accordingly, the examiner’s attempt to modify the Bally
gaming device by lessening either the rewards or the risks
associated with the auxiliary bonus game, such as by wagering
less than all of the winnings from the primary game, in our
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007