Appeal No. 2006-2057
Application No. 10/277,482
(answer, page 2) Ornstein discloses that it is an object of the invention to allow
multiple players at a gaming table to place bets based on a number of consecutive
wins. It is additionally disclosed by Ornstein that the system can be used to play
conventional games of chance such as Poker or Blackjack. From the disclosure of
Ornstein, we agree with the examiner that an artisan would have been motivated to
base the bonus segment of Awada ('643) on winning a consecutive number of
wins. In Awada ('643), the games played are War, Blackjack and Poker. In
addition, Awada ('643) teaches using the same cards used by the player in the three
segments of the game for the bonus round. From the disclosure of Awada ('643),
and the recognition by Ornstein of the importance of keeping the player at the table
by basing the player's ultimate payoff to their success on repeated plays, an artisan
would have been taught to base the bonus round payout on the player's consecutive
success in at least two of the three game segments.
We are not persuaded by appellant's assertion (brief, pages 12 and 13) that
"[n]either Awada not Ornstein has any teaching of this step. As neither reference
has a teaching of this specific step, it is impossible for the step to be obvious from
the combination of references." Appellant argues in effect that since neither
reference anticipates the bonus game segment of the claim, that it is impossible for
the combined teachings of Awada and Ornstein to render the claim obvious. We
disagree. The fact that neither reference anticipates a claim does not mean that the
combined teachings of the references cannot render the claim obvious to an artisan.
Appellant's argument blurs the distinction between 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 because it is the combined teachings of the references that have to be
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013