CINCH GAMING EQUIPMENT LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 25, 2021

2020005509 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 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.
14/831,669 08/20/2015 James Hackney 211.0005 4371
29906 7590 05/25/2021
LKGLOBAL
7010 E. COCHISE ROAD
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85253
EXAMINER
MOSSER, ROBERT E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2021 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):
docketingteam@lkglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES HACKNEY
Appeal 2020-005509
Application 14/831,669
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4–20, and 85, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. See Final Act. 1. Claims 2, 3, and 21–84
have been cancelled. Appeal Br. 10, 13 (Claims App.). 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 Cinch Gaming
Equipment LLC. Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-005509
Application 14/831,669

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to a method and system for storing and
processing data from a game controller. See Spec. ¶ 5. In some examples,
the data may be gameplay data. See id. ¶¶ 3–4. Claims 1, 16, and 20 are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method for a game controller having a main module that
communicates with an auxiliary module, comprising:
receiving, by a processor of the auxiliary module, signals
generated from manipulation of one or more components of a
game controller;
accumulating, by the processor, signal data associated
with the manipulation of the one or more components based on
the signals;
storing, by the processor, the accumulated data in a data
storage device;
identifying, by the processor, a pattern within the
accumulated data;
determining, by the processor, at least one of a type of a
game, and a game progression based on the identified pattern;
determining, by the processor, a skill level based on the
accumulated data and the at least one of, a type of a game, and a
game progression; and
generating output data based on the skill level.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).

REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Rom US 2013/0274014 A1 Oct. 17, 2013

Appeal 2020-005509
Application 14/831,669

3
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 4–20, and 85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
II. Claims 1, 4–20, and 85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
as anticipated by Rom.
OPINION
Rejection I; 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Examiner determines that claim 1 is “directed to Certain Methods
of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior or
relationships.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner concludes that claim 1 is similar
to other claims that have been identified by the courts as being directed to an
abstract idea because they “describe a set of rules.” Id.
Appellant makes arguments for the patent eligibility of claims 1, 4–
20, and 85 as a group. See Br. 4–5. We select claim 1 as the representative
claim, and claims 4–20 and 85 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant’s argument in support of the patent eligibility of claim 1
refers to the 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY
GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (hereinafter “Revised
Guidance”). Br. 4–5. Appellant asserts that based on the Revised Guidance
the claims are patent eligible because they recite “a practical application.”
Id. at 4. In particular, Appellant asserts that under the Revised Guidance, “it
is clear that the subject matter of Appellant’s claims includes a practical
application of a game controller and a processor and produces a practical
output.” Id. at 5. After stating the above-noted conclusion, Appellant
provides no further explanation, but instead “respectfully requests
Appeal 2020-005509
Application 14/831,669

4
reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection to claims 1, 16, and 20 and
the dependent claims therefrom.” Id.
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4–20, and 85 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 for the following reasons. The Supreme Court has long interpreted 35
U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exclusions to its stated categories of patent-
eligible subject matter, namely, “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank
Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs.
v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with
that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.”
Id. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and, thus, patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
Appeal 2020-005509
Application 14/831,669

5
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (internal citation omitted). “A
claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features' to ensure
‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
[abstract idea].”’ Id. (alteration in the original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at
77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to
transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
Under Step 2A of the Revised Guidance, we first look to whether the
claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human
activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) (9th Ed., Rev. 08.2017,
2018)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, in Step
2B, to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception.
Appeal 2020-005509
Application 14/831,669

6
See Revised Guidance.
Step 1 -- Statutory Category
Claim 1 recites “[a] method for a game controller having a main
module that communicates with an auxiliary module” (Br. 10 (Claims
App.)), and, therefore, falls into the process category of subject matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1 -- Recitation of Judicial Exception
Claim 1 recites, in part, 1) receiving . . . signals; 2) accumulating . . .
signal data; 3) storing . . . the accumulated data; 4) identifying . . . a pattern
within the accumulated data; 5) determining, . . . at least one of a type of a
game, and a game progression based on the identified pattern; 6)
determining . . . a skill level based on the accumulated data and the at least
one of, a type of a game, and a game progression; and 7) generating output
data.” Id.
These steps involve receiving and analyzing of data. In the context of
claim 1, this language amounts to reciting a mental process of evaluating.
See In re BRCA1 & BRCA2-Based Heredity Cancer Test Patent Litig., 774
F.3d 755, 763 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Revised Guidance at 52 (defining
mental processes as “concepts performed in the human mind (including an
observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion” (footnote omitted)); see also
Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass'n,
776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The concept of data collection,
recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known. Indeed, humans have
always performed these functions.”). The specific type of evaluating
(identifying a pattern), is merely an extension of this mental process. Thus,
we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, a mental
process, which is within one of the three categories of abstract ideas set forth
Appeal 2020-005509
Application 14/831,669

7
in the Revised Guidance. Accordingly, the outcome of our analysis under
Step 2A, Prong 1, requires us to proceed to Step 2A, Prong 2. See Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
Step 2A, Prong 2 -- Integrated Into a Practical Application
In Step 2A, Prong 2, we determine whether the recited judicial
exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a)
identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim
beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional
elements individually and in combination to determine whether they
integrate the exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance.
This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of
additional elements in the claim to 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 exception. See id.
Appellant’s contention that the claimed subject matter produces “a
practical output” (Br. 5) is merely conclusory and provides no explanation
supporting a finding that claim 1 integrates the above-noted exceptions into
a practical application. As discussed above, the steps of receiving, storing,
and determining are abstract ideas. We see no improvement to other
technology or technical field, no implementation via a particular machine,
and no transformation of an article from one form to another. Furthermore,
using a processor to perform the claimed steps and obtaining the data from a
game controller does not indicate that the recited method is performed on a
particular machine. See Br. 5. Rather, the claimed processor and game
controller are generically recited, and, in light of Appellant’s Specification,
Appeal 2020-005509
Application 14/831,669

8
do not appear to require anything more than existing electronic components,
much less require claim 1 to be performed on a particular machine as this
term relates to the machine-or-transformation test. See Spec. ¶¶ 21, 36, 61;
see also Bilski, 561 U.S. at 604.
In summary, claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exception
into a practical application. Thus, we proceed to step 2B.
Step 2B -- Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity
Appellant makes no arguments as to whether the claims include steps
that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional. We see no reason
the claimed data gathering (from a generically recited “game controller”)
and evaluation (performed on a generically recited “processor”), taken as
individual steps, or in combination, amounts to significantly more than the
above-noted judicial exception itself.
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments in support of the
patent eligibility of claim 1, but find them unavailing. As Appellant makes
no additional arguments in support of any claims depending from claim 1,
and Appellant does not separately argue in support of independent claims 16
and 20 or any of their dependent claims (see Br. 4–5), we sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 4–20, and 85 as being directed to patent-ineligible
subject matter.

Rejection II; 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
In contesting the Examiner’s finding that Rom discloses each of the
limitations of claim 1, Appellant asserts that Rom does not identify a pattern,
as recited. Br. 6. Specifically, Appellant asserts that paragraph 37 of Rom,
which the Examiner cites as disclosing a pattern, uses a string of characters
Appeal 2020-005509
Application 14/831,669

9
to identify a game, whereas the claimed pattern is recognized from stored
data. Id.
The Examiner responds that the user entering a game name defines “a
pattern (e.g. World of Warcraft™) in a quick search box” and uses the same
entered name to identify a particular game. Ans. 5. According to the
Examiner, “the stored accumulated data including the input of the game
name by the user, and the identification of a game by name (pattern)” uses
the accumulated data, as claimed. Ans. 6.
Appellant has the better position. Claim 1 recites, in part,
“accumulating, by the processor, signal data associated with the
manipulation of the one or more components based on the signals,” and
“identifying, by the processor, a pattern within the accumulated data.” Br.
10 (Claims App.)(emphasis added). Although paragraph 37 of Rom
discloses that the AMS application is used in “identifying a gaming
application,” the identification is based on the user typing in the name or
part of the name of the gaming application. Id. ¶ 37. Such a direct
identification does not amount to identifying a pattern “within” accumulated
data as recited in claim 1 because the broadest reasonable interpretation of
claim 1 requires the pattern and the accumulated data to be different things.
For example, Appellant’s Specification discloses that “data analysis module
430 receives the signal data 78 from the auxiliary module 34 that has
accumulated over time and processes the received data to determine one or
more patterns.” Spec. ¶ 63 (emphasis added). In other words, the data is
processed to produce other data (a pattern). Thus, based on the
Specification, a pattern is different from the received signals, i.e., the data
itself. Rather, the recited pattern is new information deduced from
Appeal 2020-005509
Application 14/831,669

10
accumulated information. This interpretation is also apparent from the
language of claim 1, which requires the pattern to be “within” other data. In
light of the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, we do not agree
with the Examiner that selection of a game (e.g., World of Warcraft) in Rom
qualifies as identifying a pattern within accumulated data, as required.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1 and the
claims depending therefrom. Independent claims 16 and 20 include a
similar limitation, and we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of these
claims and their dependent claims for the same reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–20, 85 101 Patent eligibility 1, 4–20, 85
1, 4–20, 85 102(a)(1) Rom 1, 4–20, 85
Overall
Outcome
1, 4–20, 85
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED