Appeal No. 2006-1909 Page 2
Application No. 10/621,768
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a method of playing a card game
in which the player is awarded a predetermined amount after a first round of
play based on the player’s final poker hand ranking, the amount of the
player’s wager, and a first pay table. The player may either collect the
award or parlay at least a portion of the award into a second round of play in
which a second pay table is used. Claim 1 is representative of the subject
matter on appeal, and a copy of this claim can be found in the appendix to
the appellant’s brief.
The examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Moody et al. (Moody) 6,419,578 Jul. 16, 2002
Gajor 6,443,456 Sep. 03, 2002
The appellant seeks our review of the examiner’s rejection of claims
1-4 under the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of Moody in view of
Gajor.
Rather than reiterate in detail the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding this appeal, we make reference to
the examiner's answer (mailed April 25, 2005) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection and to the appellant's brief (filed
January 12, 2005) for the appellant's arguments.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007