Appeal 2007-2810
Application 09/894,501
D. ANALYSIS
The facts (FF1) show that a player playing the Hoke game of chance cannot
play the secondary game of shooting a ball in a snake’s mouth unless the reels in
the prior game of chance are first aligned. Accordingly the secondary game of
shooting a ball in the snake’s mouth amounts to a bonus round; i.e., upon winning
the game of chance the player is awarded a bonus round requiring the player to
shoot a ball in a snake’s mouth to receive the winning payout. Shooting a ball is a
game of skill. FF 2. Accordingly, Hoke discloses a “secondary event bonus round
game” where the bonus round is a game of skill. We therefore find Appellant’s
argument that Hoke fails to teach a bonus round unpersuasive.
As to the argument that Hoke’s bonus round is not an apparent game of skill
but rather a true game of skill that a player must successfully resolve to receive a
payout, we direct Appellant’s attention to the disclosure in Hoke at p. 4, ll. 47-52.
(FF 3.) Hoke indicates that the accuracy of the path of the ball to the snake’s mouth
may be adjusted. This means Hoke encompasses adjusting the path so that the ball
enters the snake’s mouth each time the ball is shot. In that situation, no skill is
required to shoot the ball in a snake’s mouth and the playing Hoke’s bonus
becomes an “apparent” game of skill.
We have addressed all of Appellant’s arguments and find Appellant has not
shown error in the Examiner’s rejection.1
1 The Examiner and Appellant have debated the significance of Geddes, “Slot
Machines on Parade,” Mead, 1980, pp. 116 and 121. But we see no reason to
address it.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013