Appeal 2006-2836
Application 09/923,673
games, each of those games would be displayed on a single screen (col. 2, ll.
36-38).
The Appellants argue that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not look to Itkis for the suggestion to display a first slot game and a second
slot game independently on the same video screen to a single player”
(Br. 10), but the Appellants provide no explanation as to why that would be
so.
The Appellants argue incorrectly that Itkis’ games do not operate
independently from each other (Br. 10-11). Itkis discloses that the at least
two games are different, distinct and independent (col. 6, ll. 21-22).
The Appellants argue that Itkis would have fairly suggested, to one of
ordinary skill in the art, only bi-directional communication between a central
computer and a plurality of dumb terminals to display the same results of
two slot games to each player at each dumb terminal (Br. 10-11). That
argument is not well taken, because the Appellants are arguing the reference
individually when the rejection is based upon a combination of references.
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426, 208 USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA 1981); In
re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757-58, 159 USPQ 725, 728 (CCPA 1968). Given
the combined teachings of Gatley and Itkis, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have appreciated that Itkis’ display of multiple slot machine games on
a single screen would be a way of accomplishing Gatley’s goal of displaying
two independently playable slot machine games in a single cabinet (col. 1, l.
32 – col. 2, l. 14).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013