Appeal No. 2006-1772
Application No. 09/993,359
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 to traditional Bunco rules, the present invention
randomly selects a match point, whereas traditional Bunco is played in "rounds"
with the first round starting with a "point" of one, the second round starting with a
"point" of two. etc.
We similarly are not persuaded by appellants’ argument that the examiner’s
rejection of claim 109 is in error. As discussed supra we find that the combination of
Matsumoto and Edgeworth teach a video gaming device with display device where there
are differing gameplay dice elements, a match point, and wherein a display of a random
toss of dice are displayed at each round of the display. Appellants’ arguments regarding
the number of match points, and the random selection of match points are not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. For the forgoing reasons we are not
persuaded of an error in the examiner’s rejection of claim 109. Accordingly we sustain
the examiner’s rejection of claim 109 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection of claims 110 and 111.
Appellants argue, on page 12 of the brief, claims 110 and 111 require that a bonus
award increases with each successive stage of play. Appellants assert this feature is not
taught or suggested by the prior art.
The examiner does not directly address this argument in the response to
arguments section of the answer. However, in the statement of the rejection, on page 4 of
the answer, the examiner states: “progressive jackpots (i.e., those that increase with each
round of play until won) are well known to the art.”
We do not agree with the examiner’s rationale. Claim 110 recites “wherein the
payout mechanism includes a second paytable provided for a bonus award, said second
paytable increasing in bonus value with each successive stage of play.” Claim 111 is
dependent upon claim 110. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a), the examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker,
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007