Appeal 2007-2174
Application 10/751,614
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). In order to
determine whether a prima facie case of obviousness has been established,
we considered the factors set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
1, 17 (1996); (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences
between the prior art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in
the relevant art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, if present.
Rendleman teaches a gaming chip containing a transponder that can
be encoded with desired identification information (col. 2, ll. 62-64).
Although Rendleman provides examples of information that may be
encoded, one of ordinary skill would have understood that any type of
information could be encoded with any desired identification information.
Busch teaches the use of gaming chips in a progressive jackpot layout in
roulette, wherein the system includes sensors for detecting chips placed on
the progressive layout (abstract). Busch teaches further that the dealer may
register the number of chips played into a keypad or input device which
transmits data to a computer for processing, and that the chips are identified
as to player (col. 6, ll. 38-42). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to encode information such
as player identification and progressive (side) bets as taught by Busch into
the transponder in the chip of Rendleman because Busch teaches that these
are desired ways of identifying chip, and it would reduce the dealer
interaction by allowing the transponder in the chip to transmit the data
straight into a computer for processing, as opposed to having the dealer enter
it. Therefore, the rejection of claims 21, 23, 24, 26-28, and 30-40 over the
combination of Rendleman and Busch is affirmed. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) (“One
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013