Appeal No. 2006-1909 Page 4
Application No. 10/621,768
failed to make a prima facie case that it would have been obvious to modify
any of the methods of play of claims 1-24 of Moody to use the player’s final
five card hand to determine bonus events. (Appellant’s Brief, p. 8).
Second, the appellant argues that neither the Moody claims nor Gajor
teach or suggest a game in which the bonus event is a second round play
using a pay table with a different overall game return than the pay table used
in the first round of play. (Appellant’s Brief, p. 6). The appellant thus
argues that even if the teachings of Gajor were combined with claims 1-24
of Moody, this combination does not meet the limitation of claims 1-4.
Moody does not include a parlay feature at all, as admitted by the examiner,
and Gajor’s parlay wager is an additional wager on a separate outcome that
may occur in the first round. (Appellant’s Brief, pp. 6-7). Gajor’s method
does not use the player’s winnings from the first round of play toward a
second round of play that uses a pay table that has a different overall game
return than the first pay table from the first round of play. (Appellant’s
Brief, pp. 7-8). The appellant thus argues that the examiner has failed to
make a prima face case that it would have been obvious to modify any of the
methods of play of claims 1-24 of Moody to: (1) use at least a portion of the
player’s winnings from the first round of play in a second round of play, and
(2) use a second pay table in the second round of play that has a different
overall game return than the pay table used in the first round of play.
(Appellant’s Brief, pp. 8-9).
We reverse the examiner’s rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007