Appeal 2006-2056
Application 10/102,192
presence of the face cards. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that
Webb anticipates claims 12 and 13.
With respect to claims 14, 15, and 16 it is our finding that these claims
differ from the subject matter of Webb only to the extent that the printed
matter of Appellant is different from the printed matter shown in Webb. As
noted above, the jurisprudence recognizes that a mere change in printed
matter will not render unpatentable subject matter patentable. For example,
the fact that Webb calls his bet area the play area can in no way serve to
render the subject matter of claim 14 patentable over Webb. Accordingly,
while we reverse the § 102 rejection of claims 14 and 16, we will enter a
new rejection under § 103 of this subject matter of claims 14-16,
hereinbelow. We include claim 15 in the new rejection, inasmuch as the
thrust of the rejection has been changed. Consequently, we reverse the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 15, in favor of the new rejection.
We affirm the rejection of claim 17 as unpatentable over Webb in
view of Adams, inasmuch as Adams shows an electronic totem pole, and the
Examiner has articulated a motivation for placing this totem pole on the
gaming table of Webb. We reverse the rejection of claim 18 as unpatentable
over Webb in view of Adams. We find no teaching in the prior art of
displaying Appellant’s so-called super ace. Likewise, with respect to claim
20, although Baerlocher discloses dealer activated individual buttons for the
players, Baerlocher makes no reference to a button for selecting a super ace.
Therefore, the rejections of claims 18 and 20 are reversed.
With respect to claim 19, we are in agreement with the Examiner that
Adams discloses an electronic control device to help the dealer and players
keep track of the numerous transactions at real time speed of the game. It
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013