Appeal 2007-2174
Application 10/751,614
class of gaming chips are intermingled within said bet,” which is merely a
statement of intended use, and not a patentable limitation. Claim 28 does
not even mention that the chips are intermingled. Claim 27 recites that “at
least one gaming chip of a second class having a second transponder
containing at least value and class information, when said at least first class
gaming chip and said at least second class gaming are intermingled within
said bet.” Again, the statement that “the chips are intermingled in a bet” is
intended use and not a patentable limitation.
As to claim 28, Appellants argue “the first class gaming chip transmits
value information as described, and the second class gaming chip transmits
value and class information as recited, and that the signals distinguish the
chips as of different classes, the primary and secondary signals are
necessarily different types of signals,” and that there is no teaching in
Rendleman as to different types of signals differentiating between different
classes of chips (Br. 22 (emphasis in original)).
Rendleman teaches that different types of information, such as
denominational value, casino designation, serial number, etc., may be
encoded in the transponder (col. 3, ll. 2-9) and that such information is
transmitted and read (col. 4, ll. 35-38). Thus, the signal of Rendleman’s
transponder can clearly differentiate the different types of information, such
as class of chip.
As to claims 31 and 32, Appellants argue that “[t]here is simply no
teaching or suggestion in Rendleman . . . or Busch . . . , alone or in
combination, regarding the identification of a player and/or the identification
of a player as qualifying for both a live card game and a progressive game.”
(Br. 23.) First, one of ordinary skill in the gaming art reading Rendleman
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013