Appeal No. 2004-0361 Page 5
Application No. 09/854,156
describes several stud poker games in the Background of Invention does not establish
anticipation of the claimed stud poker game: The Examiner does not find that those games are
the same as that claimed. Nor does the mention of those games somehow transform the draw
poker game described elsewhere in Williams into a stud poker game. Using the disclosures of
different games in combination to cobble together a game meeting the limitations of the claims
would require picking and choosing between the different described games in a manner more
appropriate to an obviousness rejection than to an anticipation rejection. In order to anticipate,
the reference must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed invention or direct those
skilled in the art to the invention without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various
disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference. In re Arkley,
455 F.2d 586, 587, 172 USPQ 524, 526 (CCPA 1972).
As a second matter, all the claims further require allocation of the wager among the
multiple hands and the Examiner has failed to explain how Williams’ “one wager for all hands”
is the same as the claimed “wager which is allocated among the hands.” Such an explanation is
required in this case because the two wagering processes appear to be different. The
specification indicates that to allocate a wager among the hands means to divide it so only a
portion applies to each hand. This appears to be an accepted meaning in the art as evidenced by
Kadlic.1 The specification provides an example of wager allocation in which the player has
1Kadlic uses “allocate” to refer to this type of division of the wager as well (col. 7, l. 58 to col. 8, l. 3).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007