Appeal No. 2005-0983
Application 09/923,675
the predetermined arrangement. Thus, the examiner turns to
Schneider for a teaching of playing multiple rounds of a game in
an attempt to achieve a match in order to win an award. Further,
the examiner contends, unlike Holmes, Schneider’s quest to match
does not end after one hand and the process continues until an
actual match is achieved.
The examiner combines Holmes and Schneider because of the
“advantage,” in using the match method of Schneider, of having
two opportunities to win.
The examiner recognized that the combination of Holmes and
Schneider still does not result in a teaching of how the bonus
award would be calculated, so the examiner turns to Falciglia for
a teaching of a game where a player attempts to match indicia
chosen by the machine, the goal being to make the desirable
matches in order to obtain an award. The examiner points to
column 6, lines 11-23, of Falciglia for a teaching of basing the
award received on the number of tries it took for all of the
predetermined arrangement of criteria to be matched.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007