Appeal No. 2006-1772
Application No. 09/993,359
On pages 9 and 10 of the brief, appellants argues that the rules of traditional
Bunco do not teach the claimed features that are not taught by Matsumoto and
Edgeworth. Specifically, appellants argue that the traditional dice game of Bunco is
played in rounds, where players roll the dice to get a match point determined based upon
the round number. Appellants state, on pages 9 and 10:
The current invention of this application consists of a dice game
that is loosely based on an individual player's turn during a round of
Bunco. While this game may be played in a casino with live dealers (as is
done with the casino game of Craps) or on a gaming machine that propels
real physical dice, the preferred embodiment is on a video gaming
machine.
But unlike the version of Bunco described above, in this
embodiment there may be up to three points which the player is trying to
roll. Instead of being a single number, any number that has been rolled on
every stage of the current game is a match point. On the first roll, each
number that appears on a die becomes a point, for a possible total of three
points if all three dice are different (that is, all six possible numbers are
points for the first roll). On the second roll, the player must roll one or
more points matching the first roll to keep the game going. Any numbers
that were rolled on both the first and second rolls remain points for the
third roll. The player continues to roll until no dice match a number found
in all previous rolls, or until the highest stage upon which a bet has been
placed is rolled.
In further contrast, the present invention randomly selects a
match point. Traditional Bunco is played in "rounds". [sic] The first
round starts with all tables rolling for a "point" of one. The second round
starts with all tables rolling for a "point" of two. The "point" increases by
one for each subsequent round, whereas the match point of the present
invention may be randomly selected.
These arguments by appellants have not persuaded us of error in the examiner’s
rejection. Appellants’ arguments on pages 7 through 10 of the brief center on the
disclosed features of appellants’ Bunco type game and not the claimed features of gaming
machine. As pointed out by our reviewing court , we must first determine the scope of
the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the claim” In re Hiniker Co. 150 F.3d 1362, 1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims will be given their broadest reasonable
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007