Appeal 2007-2174
Application 10/751,614
wherein said gaming chip of said first class and said gaming chip of
said second class are configured to be read by a transceiver in a vicinity near
said betting area for transmitting signals and receiving signals to and from
said first and second transponders, wherein said at least one first class
gaming chip transmits primary signals identifying a value of said at least one
first class gaming chip to said transceiver, and wherein said at least one
second class gaming chip transmits secondary signals identifying a value
and class of said at least one second class gaming chip to said transceiver,
said secondary signals differentiating said at least one second class gaming
chip from said at least one first class gaming chip.
31. The apparatus of claim 27 wherein said value and class information
contained in said second transponder identifies a player using said second
class casino chip.
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Rendleman 5,166,502 Nov. 24 , 1992
Busch 6,059,659 May 9, 2000
We affirm.
DISCUSSION
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
The first step in deciding patentability issues under 35 U.S. C. § 103 is
determining what is being claimed. See Key Pharmaceuticals v. Hercon
Laboratories Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 714, 48 USPQ2d 1911, 1915 (Fed. Cir.
1998). In addition, our mandate is to give claims their broadest reasonable
construction. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d
1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “An essential purpose
of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and
unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013