Appeal No. 2004-0361 Page 6
Application No. 09/854,156
selected three hands to play and makes a wager of fifteen credits. As explained in the
specification, the computer allocates five credits to each hand (specification, p. 10, ll. 9-13). In
the method of Williams, the wager is not “allocated among the hands” but is applied in full to
each hand. In the example of the specification, each of the three hands would have fifteen credits
applied to it if the process of Williams were followed. There is a difference between the
Williams method and that of the claims which is unaccounted for by the Examiner and we cannot
say that the Examiner has adequately supported the conclusion that “both have the same
meaning.”
Lastly, all of the claims require the dealing and displaying of multiple partial hands, each
partial hand having the same cards and the Examiner has not established that Williams both deals
and displays the required multiple hands. Williams deals and displays only one community
partial hand. While the community cards are common to each of the final hands in practice, only
one set of community cards is dealt and displayed. While, in concept, the result is the same to
the player, the specific dealing and displaying requirements of the claims are not met by
Williams. There is not the identity required by anticipation.
We find that the Examiner has failed to establish anticipation by Williams with respect to
the subject matter of claims 1, 4, 14, 21, and 26. Williams is relied upon in the obviousness
rejections in the same capacity as in the anticipation rejection and the Examiner fails to provide
findings as to why the “differences” discussed above would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention. Specifically, the rejections lack any findings of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007