Appeal No. 2003-0097
Application 09/360,969
match the generated individual indicia.” The examiner considers
the appellants’ disclosure to be non-enabling with respect to
this subject matter because
[a]lthough the gaming system disclosed by the
appellants is capable of allowing players wag[er]ing or
betting on a sub-set of indicia in a game, . . . it
does not provide means or function that would allow or
permit players to wager on a sub-set of indicia in
anticipation of the wagered sub-set being the first to
match the generated individual indicia. . . . [I]f a
player can wager on a subset of indicia in anticipation
of the wagered sub-set being the first to match the
generated individual indicia, as claimed, that player
would always be a winner and can win every game as a
result of anticipation of the wagered sub-set [answer,
page 4].
This position rests on the nonsensical notion that the “in
anticipation . . .” language in claim 17 equates the anticipated
winning sub-set of indicia to the actual winning sub-set of
indicia, even though the latter has yet to be randomly determined
at the time the former is wagered on. Most wagers are made “in
anticipation” that they will be winning ones, but with the
realization that this anticipation may not be fulfilled. There
is nothing in claim 17, or in the underlying disclosure, which is
inconsistent with this common sense understanding.
Hence, the examiner has not met the initial burden of
advancing acceptable reasoning inconsistent with enablement.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007