Appeal No. 2003-1317
Application 09/043,787
whereas Weiss requires the participating EGMs to be of the same
type. Appellants also argue that Weiss fails to teach or suggest
the monitoring and detection of hardmeter signals. Appellants
argue that there is no need to monitor hardmeter signals in order
to be involved in a jackpot award process. Appellants also argue
that Acres relates to a single venue only and does not have an
enabling disclosure for implementing a mystery jackpot.
Appellants note that the discrete signals of Acres are not the
same as the claimed hardmeter signals. With respect to Tracy,
appellants argue that Tracy does not teach hardmeter signals or
machines not ordinarily designed for use in a network. Finally,
appellants argue that Weiss does not teach or suggest the feature
of the award of the jackpot being independent of the gaming
results of the one EGM [brief, pages 8-14].
The examiner responds that Weiss teaches different EGMs
at column 1, lines 30-35, column 3, lines 49-53 and column 9,
line 65 to column 10, line 3. The examiner also responds that
the various signals monitored by Weiss suggest the monitoring of
hardmeter signals as claimed. The examiner disputes appellants’
assertion that there is no need to monitor hardmeter signals for
awarding a jackpot because the amount of money played is
necessary to determine the jackpot winner. The examiner notes
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007