Appeal 2007-2064
Application 10/116,562
D. ANALYSIS
The claimed method differs from that of Webb in offering a specific 6:5
payoff when a player has a winning Blackjack hand. Webb discloses payoffs above
1:1, such as 3:2. The claimed 6:5 payoff is above 1:1. We agree with the Examiner
(see the First Office action, mailed 30 January 2003, p. 4) that, given this, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to offer a payoff of 6:5.
Appellants argue that the claimed Blackjack card game operates differently
from Webb’s reverse Blackjack game. Reply Br. 2. We agree with the Examiner
(Answer 3-4) that the method claimed is not drafted so as to exclude the reverse
Blackjack game Webb describes.
The secondary considerations discussed in the Declarations do not dislodge
a conclusion that the claimed subject matter is obvious over Webb, for the
following reasons.
Declarants state that the claimed game is popular with players. However,
declarants reach their conclusion after comparing player reaction to offering the
claimed single-deck 6:5 Blackjack game with the more common multiple-deck
game. The comparison that should have been made is with a single-deck 3:2
Blackjack game. Nonetheless, we find it unlikely one would observe players
preferring to play a single-deck 6:5 Blackjack game that pays off less than a single-
deck 3:2 Blackjack game.
Given the lower 6:5 payoff, it is not unexpected that the claimed game is
popular with casinos.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013