Appeal No. 2006-2057
Application No. 10/277,482
are used by the player to indicate how many consecutive wins that player believes
he will win in order to receive an enhanced payoff.” It is further disclosed that a
player places the chip or chips of desired denomination on the desired consecutive
win mark (col. 2, lines 20-22). Because Ornstein discloses placing the side bet on
how many consecutive games he/she intends to win, we find that the side bet
wager can be considered a game with each of the individual hands being segments
of the game.
Appellant further asserts that in Awada ('643) the third segment of the game
is played against the dealer's hand, not against a paytable. From our review of
Awada ('643), we find that all three of the segments are played against the dealer's
hand (col. 3, lines 23-53). Claim 1 recites that the fist two segments are played
against the dealer's hand but that the third segment is played against a paytable.
We are not persuaded by the examiner's assertion (answer, page 2) that because the
jackpot and bonus wager is played against a paytable (paying for four of a kind or
higher) in combination with the disclosure of Poker wager 54, that Awada ('643)
discloses resolving the third segment according to a paytable. From our review of
Awada ('643) we find that the third segment (Poker) is played against the dealer's
hand. The fact that the bonus segment is also based on the same hand is not a
teaching or suggestion of resolving the third segment against a paytable. Although
it is known in casino gaming that payouts can be based on either a paytable or the
dealer hand, we find no teaching or suggestion to have selected the third segment
to resolve payout based on a paytable, while resolving the first two game segments
based upon the dealer hand, other than through a hindsight reconstruction of
appellant's invention. AObviousness may not be established using hindsight or in
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013