Appeal No. 2006-2057
Application No. 10/277,482
comparison of the hand with a plurality of predetermined winning outcomes by
utilizing only a pay table.” From this disclosure, we find that the claim, as broadly
worded, requires that at least one of the three segments is resolved against a
paytable. As drafted, this can mean one, or two or all three segments are decided
against a pay table. Because of the widespread use of paytables in the casino
gaming art, we find that an artisan would have been motivated to use a paytable for
one or more of the segments. Accordingly, we find that the combined teachings of
Awada ('643) and Ornstein would have suggested to an artisan the language of
claim 15. The rejection, of claim 15, along with claims 16-18, and 21-24, which
depend therefrom, is sustained.
We turn next to claim 25. Appellant asserts (brief, page 7) that the claim
recites "placing a side bet on the occurrence of a win and/or push on at least two
consecutively played game segments." It is argued that this feature is clearly
absent from the teachings of each of Awada ('643) and Ornstein. We will sustain
the rejection of claim 25 based upon our findings, supra, with respect to the
teachings and suggestions of Awada ('643) and Ornstein as applied to claim 1. As
we found, supra, an artisan would have been motivated to resolve the jackpot and
bonus segment of Awada ('643) based on a side bet of consecutive wins as taught
by Ornstein. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 25, and claims 26-30, which fall
with claim 25 (brief, page 10).
We turn next to the rejection of claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Awada ('643) in view of Awada ('550), de Keller, and
Ornstein. We begin with claim 1.
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013