Appeal No. 2006-0648 5
Application No. 09/815,181
the dealer assembling his dealt cards in a playing station in a
manner corresponding to said one player having the highest number of
dealt cards;
the dealer comparing the cards assembled in each row of boxes in
his playing area to cards assembled in corresponding rows of boxes in
each player playing station and collecting or paying said first bets in each
bank betting area of each playing station; and
the dealer comparing cards assembled in each row of boxes in each
player playing station and settling said second bets between players in
each player betting area of each playing station [column 1, line 56,
through column 2, line 40].
Malek also teaches that the games are played and settled in order, preferably
Twenty-One, Draw Poker and then Baccarat (see column 6, lines 1-7), using
conventional rules (see column 5, lines 44-56) and standard fifty-two card decks (see
column 3, lines 59-61), and that the overall game can be adapted for electronic play (see
column 6, lines 66 and 67).
The playing method disclosed by Malek lacks response to the limitation in
independent claim 1 reciting a second game wager on the player’s hand having
“designated” cards within a suit and the corresponding limitations in independent claims
22 and 41 reciting a second game wager on the player’s hand having “predetermined”
cards. Malek neither teaches nor suggests any such second game wager. Recognizing
this shortcoming, the examiner looks to Aramapakul and Cadaco.
Aramapakul discloses a modification of a target numerical sum game such as
Blackjack or Baccarat. The modification allows for a supplemental wager that the cards
dealt to a player will be of the same suit.
The examiner submits that it would have been obvious “to incorporate the
teachings of Aramapakul into the disclosure of Malek wherein a simpler game, playable
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007