Appeal 2007-2174
Application 10/751,614
of using the chip (id. at 4-5). Moreover, according to the Examiner, the
“fact is that the chips as taught by Rendleman . . . are structurally capable of
responding to transponder signals and different chips, even when placed in
close proximity to each other, would respond differently, based on the
different type of data stored on the chip.” (Id. at 5.)
The Examiner finds that if “class of chip” includes information such
as casino information, then Rendleman teaches all of the limitation of claim
27 (id. at 4). If, however, “‘class of chip’ is interpreted to be a ‘promotional’
or ‘side-bet’ type of designation as could be understood in light of the
specification, then Rendleman . . . is deficient in this regard,” as
“Rendleman . . . differentiates chips in a variety of ways but not in this
way.” (Id. at 5.)
Busch is cited as teaching “progressive chips” as a separate category
of chips, which, in one form, are not the same as those used to place the
standard bets (id. at 6).
The Examiner concludes:
In view of Busch[’s] . . . teaching, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to accommodate Rendleman[’s] . . . chip
technology to Busch’s “progressive chips” because that way the
house can have an easier time managing many complex side-
bets. Rendleman . . . already shows that chips (whether
intermingled in a bet or not—this is intended use) can be
differentiated from one another in a variety of ways: “casino
designation, denominational chip value, serial number and date
of issue.” Distinguishing progressive chips is simply one more
designation, and Busch shows the value of distinguishing chips
in this way.
(Id.)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013