Appeal No. 2002-1407
Application 09/157,995
opinion, is contrary to the essential teachings of Bally and
would change a fundamental principle of operation of the Bally
gaming device. In our view, this significant disincentive for
modifying Bally in the manner urged by the examiner is not
overcome by the mere disclosure in Marsh of the concept of a game
feature wherein less than all the winnings of a prior game can be
wagered in an attempt to attain another prize in a subsequent
play of a game of the same type. Marsh appears to be drawn to a
method for allowing continuous play of a primary game based on
“credits” won, without the deposit of any additional money.
Marsh does not teach or suggest that less than all of a prize or
winnings can be apportioned in any type of secondary bonus game
or device, much less a secondary bonus game/device of the
particular type taught in Bally.
Simply stated, one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have found any teaching, suggestion, or incentive in Marsh for
attempting to employ the wagering scheme of Marsh’s continuous
play game to change the high stakes/high risk “Double or Nothing”
bonus wagering scheme of the slot machine device of Bally. In
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007