Appeal 2007-1436
Application 10/390,318
(Answer 10). The issue before us is whether Appellant has shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-9, 12-15, 17, 20-23, and 25 as unpatentable
over Beaulieu and Diederiks and claims 16, 18, and 19 as unpatentable over
Beaulieu, Diederiks, and Mattice.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427,
7 USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary
standard for proceedings before the Office).
1. Beaulieu discloses a wagering gaming device which provides
increased interaction between the player and wagering gaming device by
physically stimulating various components of the wagering gaming device and
thus the player (Beaulieu ¶ 3).
2. The wagering gaming device 10 includes one or more display devices,
e.g., a central display device 30 and an upper display device 32 (Beaulieu ¶ 25 and
Figs 1B).
3. The player input device, for example, a button 74, includes a
component stimulator and an actuation member. Upon pressing the button 74, the
processor acknowledges the input and sends a signal to the component stimulator.
The component stimulator physically stimulates the actuation member of the input
device, for example, by vibrating it (Beaulieu ¶ 45).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013