Appeal No. 2006-2057
Application No. 10/277,482
segment of Awada ('643) using a paytable. For the above reasons, we are not
persuaded by appellant's assertion (brief, page 18) that Awada ('550) and de Keller
do not make up for the failures of the teachings of Awada ('643) and Ornstein. The
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-14, 19 and 20, which stand or fall with claim 1,
is sustained.
We turn next to claim 15. Appellant (brief, page 20) repeats the argument
that the prior art does not teach or suggest paying the player for winning or pushing
on at least two consecutively played game segments. We sustain the rejection of
claim 15, and claims 16-18 and 21-24, which stand or fall with claim 15, for the
reasons which we sustained the rejection of claim 1, for the reasons which we
sustained the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Awada ('643) in view of Ornstein, and additionally because the disclosure in
Awada ('550) of having all three segments resolved by a pay table would have
suggested in Awada ('643) having all three segments resolved by a
paytable. Note that claim 15 requires at least one game segment be resolved by a
paytable.
We turn next to claim 25. Appellant (brief, pages 20 and 21) relies upon the
arguments presented for claim 1 and once again asserts that the prior art does not
teach or suggest placing a side bet on the occurrence of a win and/or push on at
least two consecutively played game segments. We will sustain the rejection of
claim 25, and claims 26-30, which stand or fall with claim 25, for the reasons
which we affirmed the rejection of claim 1, and additionally for the reasons which
we affirmed the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Awada ('643) in view of Ornstein.
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013