Appeal No. 2005-1003
Application No. 09/967,249
In essence, it is our view that since player selection of a
particular payline was known in the art, and player selection of
a scattered payline, albeit a system generated one, was known in
the art, it would have been a matter of obviousness for one of
ordinary skill in the art to broaden the selection parameters of
the player to embrace the specific random pattern of cells
desired. Manifestly, the gaming world is replete with games that
allow a player to select a particular winning combination or
pattern. The game of roulette is simply one example where the
player selects a desired winning payline, i.e., a pattern of
numbers on the roulette wheel. Appellants have apprised us of no
nonobvious technology that allows for a player to select a
scatter payline in lieu of one generated by the system.
As for separately argued claim 15, and the claims grouped
therewith, which defines the evaluation station as comprising a
pawn shop, we adopt the examiner's reasoning set forth at pages
14-15 of the Answer. Appellants' Reply Brief fails to address
the substance of the examiner's reasoning underlying the
rejection, but merely points to the examiner's recognition that
the prior art does not teach a pawnshop, and that "[s]ince these
claims recite a pawn shop, the rejection must fail" (page 2 of
Reply Brief, last paragraph).
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007