Appeal 2006-2056
Application 10/102,192
for the claimed subject matter. Further, whether claims 3 and 6 are
indefinite under the purview of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Third,
whether claims 12-14 and 16 are properly rejected as lacking novelty over
Webb, and, finally, whether claims 15 and 17-20 are unpatentable under §
103.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellant’s Specification clearly discloses that in order to be eligible
for an add on prize, the player must have made an add on bet and the player
must receive an ace in his or her hand. While the second act of receiving an
ace in the hand is not discretionary on the part of the player, placing the bet
is discretionary. Therefore, it is our view that the language of the claim does
not preclude the second condition—receiving an ace. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under § 112, first paragraph.
Pertaining to the Webb patent, Webb discloses a method of playing a
card game using a regular 52 card, four suit deck. Webb shows a gaming
table for playing the card game with a position for the dealer on the straight
side and a curved side having positions for up to 7 players. Each player has
a play area with an ante area 18, bet or play area 20, and a pairs plus or
insurance bet area at 16.
Adams shows a roulette game table which has a totem or standard 36
with a jackpot sign 38 and speakers thereon. The standard has a set of
colored lights 1-7 which indicate which players have placed a jackpot wager
and are thus eligible to participate in the jackpot. The jackpot value is also
shown on the jackpot sign 38.
Baerlocher shows a roulette gaming apparatus which discloses
controls for the dealer, buttons 48-60, which the dealer uses to enable spin
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013