CFPH, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 20, 2021

2020006057 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/322,557 07/02/2014 Lee Amaitis 07-2188-C1 1097
63710 7590 04/20/2021
INNOVATION DIVISION
CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P.
110 EAST 59TH STREET (6TH FLOOR)
NEW YORK, NY 10022
EXAMINER
RADA, ALEX P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/20/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
lkorovich@cantor.com
mcatarino@cgolaw.com
patentdocketing@cantor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LEE AMAITIS and KEVIN BURMAN

Appeal 2020-006057
Application 14/322,557
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 34–53. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CFPH,
LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-006057
Application 14/322,557

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification discloses embodiments including devices and
methods for a card playing system including a card delivery shoe apparatus
and associated software. See, e.g., Spec. 36–44.
CLAIMS
Claims 34 and 45 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 34 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
34. An apparatus to facilitate a game over a communication
network with a graphical user interface of a mobile electronic
device, the apparatus comprising:
a computer-readable medium that is non-transitory, in
which the computer-readable medium to store instructions
which, when executed by the processor, direct the processor to:
receive at least one signal from an electronic card
deck reader of a game where one or more players are
playing the game, wherein the electronic card deck reader
is configured to read playing cards as the cards are
removed from a deck of cards for the game, and wherein
the at least one signal represents at least one first card
dealt in the game after a first wager on the game has been
made;
based on the signal, provide to a user at an
graphical user interface of a mobile electronic device an
electronic indication of the at least one card;
receive an indication of a house edge;
after receiving the indication of the house edge,
receive, from the graphical user interface of the mobile
electronic device of a user, an indication of a wager in
the game;
in response to receiving the indication of the
wager, enter information in a first electronic ticket stored
in an electronic database, in which the first ticket tracks
the wager;
Appeal 2020-006057
Application 14/322,557

3
in response to receiving the wager, populate the
graphical user interface of the mobile electronic device of
the user with an indication of at least one first card dealt
in the game;
determine odds that maintain the house edge for a
second wager in the game, in which the second wager is
available after the at least one first card is dealt and in
which the odds are determined based at least in part on
the at least one first card being dealt in the game;
in response to determining the odds, transmit,
through a communication network and to the graphical
user interface of the mobile electronic device, an
indication of the determined odds;
receive, from the graphical user interface of the
mobile electronic device of the user, an indication of the
second wager,
in response to receiving the indication of the
second wager, enter information in a second electronic
ticket stored in the database, in which the second
electronic ticket tracks the second wager;
populate, through the communication network, the
graphical user interface of the mobile electronic device
with an indication of the at least one second card in the
game;
determine an outcome of the second wager based
at least in part on the at least one second card;
update the first electronic ticket to reflect the
outcome;
determine a second outcome of the second wager
based at least in part on the at least one second card;
update the second electronic ticket to reflect the
second outcome; and
populate the graphical user interface of the mobile
electronic device with an indication of each of the
outcome and the second outcome.
Appeal 2020-006057
Application 14/322,557

4
Appeal Br. 18–19.
REJECTION2
The Examiner rejects claims 34–53 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to a judicial exception without significantly more.
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues the claims as a group. Appeal Br. 9–14. We select
independent claim 34 as representative, and the remaining claims will stand
or fall with claim 34. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor.” 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101 to include
an implicit exception: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216
(2014).
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework
previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim

2 In addition to the rejection listed here, the Examiner provisionally rejects
claims 34–53 1 and 10 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type
double patenting. Final Act. 2–4. The Appellant does not raise any
substantive arguments regarding this provisional rejection. See Appeal Br.
15. On the record before us, we determine that addressing the Examiner's
provisional rejection would be premature. See Ex parte Moncla, Appeal
2009-006448, 95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We
therefore do not reach the provisional obviousness-type double-patenting
rejection of claims 34–53.
Appeal 2020-006057
Application 14/322,557

5
laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim
patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217.
The first step in that analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are not
directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, the inquiry
ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements
of the claims are considered “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’”
to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the
nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 79, 78). This is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’ — i.e., an
element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
[ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. at 217–18 (alteration in original).
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) published
revised guidance on January 7, 2019, for use by USPTO personnel in
evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2019 REVISED
PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (the “2019 Revised Guidance”).3 That guidance revised the USPTO’s
examination procedure with respect to the first step of the Mayo/Alice
framework by (1) “[p]roviding groupings of subject matter that [are]
considered an abstract idea”; and (2) clarifying that a claim is not “directed
to” a judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception. Id. at 50.

3 The MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) incorporates
the revised guidance and subsequent updates at Section 2106 (9th ed.
Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020).
Appeal 2020-006057
Application 14/322,557

6
The first step, as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance (i.e.,
Step 2A), is, thus, a two-prong test. In Step 2A, Prong One, we look to
whether the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., one of the following
three groupings of abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts; (2) certain
methods of organizing human activity, e.g., fundamental economic
principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions; and (3) mental
processes. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. If so, we next
determine, in Step 2A, Prong Two, whether the claim as a whole integrates
the recited judicial exception into a practical application, i.e., whether the
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful
limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting
effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Id. at 54–55. Only if
the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application do we conclude that the claim is
“directed to” the judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea. Id.
If the claim is determined to be directed to a judicial exception under
revised Step 2A, we next evaluate the additional elements, individually and
in combination, in Step 2B, to determine whether they provide an inventive
concept, i.e., whether the additional elements or combination of elements
amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself; only then, is
the claim patent eligible. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Here, in rejecting independent claim 34, the Examiner determines that
the claims recite steps for performing certain methods of organizing human
activity including “steps of fundamental economic principles or practices,
following rules or instructions (managing personal behavior or relationships
Appeal 2020-006057
Application 14/322,557

7
or interactions between people) and agreements in the form of a contracts
[sic] (commercial or legal interactions, i.e., placing a wager).” Final Act. 5.
The Examiner finds that under the claim’s broadest reasonable
interpretation, the claim “covers performances of following rules or
instructions and agreements in the form of a contracts but for the recitation
of generic computer component,” and thus it falls within the certain methods
of organizing human activities grouping of abstract ideas. Id. at 5–6. The
Examiner further finds that the claim recites additional elements including a
computer-readable medium and a processor that “are recited at a high-level
of generality” and perform “generic computer functions . . . such that it
amount[s] to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a
generic computer.” Id. at 6. The Examiner determines that the use of such
generic computer equipment to apply the abstract idea do not integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application. Id. at 7. Finally, the Examiner
determines that the claims require only the use of off-the-shelf equipment
that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional functions such that
the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more
than the judicial exception. Id. at 7–8.
Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A)
Appellant does not raise any arguments regarding the Examiner’s
finding that claim 34 recites an abstract idea. See Appeal Br. 9–14. We
agree with the Examiner’s findings and determination regarding this step of
the analysis. It is clear from the Specification (including the claim language)
that claim 34 focuses on an abstract idea.
The Specification makes clear that the alleged invention is related to
certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of managing
Appeal 2020-006057
Application 14/322,557

8
interactions between people during a betting game. The Specification is
titled “GAME WITH INTERIM BETTING.” The Specification discloses
the rules for numerous betting card games including poker, Caribbean stud,
blackjack, and baccarat. Spec. 18–35. The Specification discloses systems
and methods for automatically tracking card outcomes in a card game (via a
card dispensing shoe), automatically tracking hands and bets during card
games (via a game table system), and providing security in a card game (via
security features on a card or game bet sensors). See id. at 36–44.
Additionally, the Specification discloses methods for operating such devices
to play a card game and track cards. See, e.g., id. at 45–51. Further, the
Specification discloses devices and methods for playing wagering card
games over a communication system. Id. at 59–60. The Specification
further provides an example explaining how a baccarat game may be played
with the methods and devices disclosed. Id. at 60–70.
Consistent with the written description, claim 34 recites “an apparatus
to facilitate a game over a communication network with a graphical user
interface of a mobile electronic device” including a computer-readable
medium with instructions to be performed by a processor. Those
instructions include steps for receiving signals from an electronic card deck
reader based on cards dealt; providing users with an electronic indication of
cards dealt; receiving an indication of a house edge; receiving an indication
of a wager; entering wager information on an electronic ticket; populating a
user interface with an indication of cards dealt; determining and transmitting
odds for a second wager; receiving an indication of a second wager; entering
second wager information on an electronic ticket; populating a user interface
with an indication of subsequent cards dealt; determining outcomes of the
Appeal 2020-006057
Application 14/322,557

9
wagers; updating electronic ticket information; and providing an indication
of outcomes to the mobile electronic device. We agree with the Examiner
that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the claim
recites steps for performing a wagering game, which is a form of managing
relationships between people that is a certain method of organizing human
activity, i.e., an abstract idea. See, e.g., In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
Turning to prong two, the 2019 Revised Guidance references MPEP,
Ninth Edition § 2106.05(a)–(c) and (e) in non-exhaustively listing
considerations indicative that an additional element or combination of
elements may have integrated a recited judicial exception into a practical
application. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. In particular, the
2019 Revised Guidance describes that an additional element may have
integrated the judicial exception into a practical application if, inter alia, the
additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer
or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. At the same
time, it makes clear that merely including instructions to implement an
abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform
an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial
exception; or only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a
particular technological environment or field are not sufficient to integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application. Id.
Here, the Examiner determines that the additional elements claimed
include a computer-readable medium and a processor that “are recited at a
high-level of generality” and that these elements are not sufficient to
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Final Act. 6.
Appeal 2020-006057
Application 14/322,557

10
We agree that the claim does not include additional elements that are
sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practicable application.
We agree that the claimed computer-readable medium and processor are
recited at a high level of generality. Further, the Specification discloses that
the “term ‘computer-readable medium’ refers to any medium, a plurality of
the same, or a combination of different media, that participate in providing
data (e.g., instructions, data structures) which may be read by a computer, a
processor or a like device.” Spec. 10, ll. 21–24. And a processor “means
one or more microprocessors, central processing units (CPUs), computing
devices, microcontrollers, digital signal processors, or like devices or any
combination thereof, regardless of the architecture.” Id. at 10, ll. 5–7. Thus,
the claimed medium may be any means for providing data to be read by a
computer and the processor may be any type of processor. Given this broad
disclosure regarding these additional elements, we agree with the Examiner
that the claim recites only instructions to apply the claimed computing steps
in a generic computing environment. We also note that the claim includes
“a mobile electronic device with a graphical user interface,” “an electronic
card deck reader,” and “playing cards.” However, the claim only recites a
computer-readable medium that may direct a processor to interact with such
elements. As such, we determine that they are not positively recited
elements in the claim. Further, to the extent that one might consider them to
be positively recited, they only further limit the technological environment
in which the abstract idea is applied.
Appellant argues that the claim integrates the abstract idea into a
practical application because the claim
is directed to improvements in computer performance by
providing a game with cards being dealt from an electronic card
Appeal 2020-006057
Application 14/322,557

11
reader using electronic tickets to track outcomes in a database
and to communicate the outcomes over a network with
graphical user interfaces of mobile electronic devices. In one
example, these techniques help manage activity over the
network and help control computer performance.
Appeal Br. 12 (citing Spec. 66, l. 16–67, l. 22).4 Additionally, Appellant
argues that the present claim “uniquely” matches the facts presented in Core
Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir.
2018). Id. Appellant asserts that the claim here, like in Core Wireless, is
directed to an improved user interface that provides advantages over prior art
systems, “which helps improve the efficiency of the electronic devices,
thereby overcoming disadvantages of prior systems.” Id. at 12–13
(emphasis omitted). Appellant continues:
For example, the claimed subject matter recites improvements
in a computer system by providing a game with cards being
dealt from an electronic card reader using electronic tickets to
track outcomes in a database and to communicate the outcomes
over a network with graphical user interfaces of mobile
electronic devices, which help manage computer performance.
Id. at 13 (emphasis omitted). We are not persuaded. Appellant does not
explain how the cited paragraphs disclose techniques that improve computer
performance or provide for a specific interface akin to claims at issue in
Core Wireless. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that the cited
paragraphs “do not provide a specific manner of displaying a limited set of
information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface
methods to display a generic index on a computer.” Ans. 10 (emphasis
omitted). Even if we were to agree that the claim recites additional elements

4 This citation corresponds to the paragraphs from the published application
cited by Appellant.
Appeal 2020-006057
Application 14/322,557

12
to provide “a game with cards being dealt from an electronic card reader
using electronic tickets to track outcomes in a database and to communicate
the outcomes over a network with graphical user interfaces of mobile
electronic devices,” Appellant does not explain how this improves computer
performance or how it improves a graphical user interface. As explained by
the Examiner, the cited portions of the Specification only provide a list of
embodiments performing different functions without explanation or
indication as to how a computer system may be improved therefrom. These
portions do not provide a technical explanation sufficient to show anything
more than the use of generic computer functions to perform certain steps in
playing a card game in a mobile environment.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s determination that claim 34 does not include sufficient elements
to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, we also do
not find any error in the Examiner’s determination that claim 34 is directed
to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that
claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the
2019 Revised Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework,
whether claim 1 includes additional elements or a combination of elements
that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether claim 1 includes
additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial
exception itself. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. We agree with
the Examiner that it does not.
Appeal 2020-006057
Application 14/322,557

13
The Examiner explains that the claim recites only off-the-shelf,
generic apparatuses that perform generic functions. Final Act. 7. As
discussed above, we agree that the claimed computer-readable medium and
processor are described at a high level of generality, and we agree with the
Examiner that they perform only basic computer functions. See id. at 7–8.
Further, the Examiner provides evidence that, to the extent the claim
requires a card deck reader and resources for allowing remote participation
in a wagering game, those are conventional and well-known in the art. Id. at
8. In short, based on the evidence provided and the Specification,
Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification,
requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional
computer, network, and display technology for gathering,
sending, and presenting the desired information. As discussed
above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a
practical application, the additional elements of using a
computer-readable medium and processor to perform the
“provide”, “receive”, “receiving”, “determining”, “populate”,
and “update” are steps amounts to no more than mere
instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer
component.
Final Act. 8. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the claim does not
provide an inventive concept.
Appellant argues that the rejection does not satisfy the evidentiary
requirements required at Step 2B. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant asserts that the
Examiner’s analysis “merely provides conclusory statements” and that “the
claims include additional subject matter that is not well-understood, routine,
conventional activity and thus an ‘inventive concept.’.” Id.at 13–14.
Appellant asserts that “the claimed techniques include a game with cards
being dealt from an electronic card reader using electronic tickets to track
outcomes in an database and to communicate the outcomes over a network
Appeal 2020-006057
Application 14/322,557

14
with graphical user interfaces of mobile electronic devices” are not well-
understood, routine, [or] conventional. Id. at 14. Yet, Appellant provides no
explanation as to why such “techniques” are not well-understood, routine, or
conventional. In contrast, the Examiner has provided evidence that the
techniques involve the use of well-understood and conventional technology.
Without any further explanation, we agree with, and fail to see any error in,
the Examiner’s analysis.
We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred
in rejecting independent claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claim 34. We also sustain the rejection of claims 35–
53, which fall with claim 1.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 34–53 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
34–53 101 Ineligible Subject
Matter
34–53

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136 (a)(l)(iv).

AFFIRMED