Appeal 2007-2174
Application 10/751,614
second class of chip to promotional or side-bets, the identification would not
be broad enough to encompass player identification.
Claims 27 and 28 are drawn to an apparatus, wherein the apparatus
reads on two gaming chips, wherein the transponder in the first chip contains
at least a denominational value (the first class of chip), and the transponder
in the second chip contains identification differentiating the second class of
chip from the first class of chip.
REJECTION
Claims 21, 23, 24, 26-28, and 30-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Rendleman and Busch.
Appellants argue the claims in 3 groups: Group I, comprising claims
21, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 30-40 (Br. 20), of which claim 21 is representative;
Group II comprising claim 28 (Br. 22); and Group III comprising claims 31
and 32 (id.), of which claim 31 is representative;
Rendleman is cited for teaching a gaming chip for use in a casino
game, wherein the gaming chip contains a transponder with memory in it,
wherein the “‘transponder has a unique code in alternating octal hex, an
equivalence of 32 bits, resulting in thirty-four billion possible
combinations.’” (Answer 3-4 (quoting Rendleman, col. 2, l. 50-col. 3, l.
10).) Rendleman is also cited for teaching that a variety of designations
identifying the different kinds of chip may be placed in the memory,
including denominational chip value, serial number, date of issue, and casino
designation (Answer 4). As to the limitation that the chips are intermingled
in a bet, the Examiner notes that limitation is drawn to intended use, and not
a patentable limitation, as claim 27 is drawn to a chip, and not to a method
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013