Appeal No. 2006-1772
Application No. 09/993,359
Claim 109 recites the limitation “said program establishing a set of differing
gameplay dice elements, including a subset of at least one match point at the start of the
game, each said match point having a match indicium for potential matching with a
subsequent toss of the dice elements.” We consider the scope of the limitation of
“gameplay dice elements” to include the virtual equivalent to a die (a gaming element
that randomly generates values, the values are represented by indicia on the dice, i.e. the
indicia of 2 is two dots). We consider the scope of the limitation “match point” to be a
value, the indicium of which is to be matched with the indicia displayed by the roll of the
dice. See for example page 5, lines 21 through 27 of appellants’ specification. Thus, we
consider the scope of claim 109 to include that a set of dice elements are established and
that a match point established is a subset of the values which can be generated on the
dice. The purpose of the match point is for potential matching with subsequent toss of
the dice. We do not find that this limitation of the claim recites how the match point is
established or how many match points are used in the game, i.e. we do not find that the
claim recites the match point being established by an initial roll of the dice elements as
disclosed in appellants’ specification and argued by appellants on page 10 of the brief.
Claim 109 also recites the limitation of “said program establishing and displaying
a random toss of a plurality of dice elements at each stage of play, and determining for
each die element tossed at a stage of play whether its randomly selected indicium
matches said match indicium of said match point.” We consider the scope of this
limitation to include that there are multiple stages of play on the game and that a random
toss of the dice elements, established in the prior limitation are displayed. Further, the
indicium displayed on the dice are compared to the indicium of the match point. We do
not find that this limitation recites the effect of a match. The further recitation of
“providing an award according to a predetermined first paytable for each match on a
toss” does establish that an award is paid if there is a match. The limitation also does not
identify what happens if no match is made, as such there is no claimed feature making
successive stages dependent upon previous stages, as argued on page 5 of the reply brief.
Having determined the scope of claim 109, we next consider the teachings of the
prior art.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007