Crawford, James Thomas. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 31, 2020

15959186 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2020)

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.
15/959,186 04/21/2018 James Thomas Crawford III 310_003US1 1005
97462 7590 03/31/2020
Mark A. Litman & Associates, P.A.
7001 Cahill Road, Ste. 15A
Edina, MN 55439
EXAMINER
MOSSER, ROBERT E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAMES THOMAS CRAWFORD III, GEHRIG H. WHITE,
KENDAL FERNER, and LYLE ARNOLD BERMAN

Appeal 2019-004748
Application 15/959,186
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, 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 1–6 and 12–17. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

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
James Crawford III. Appeal Br. 3. We also note that Appellant’s statement
in this regard appears to erroneously identify James Crawford III as the sole
inventor.
Appeal 2019-004748
Application 15/959,186

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification discloses that “[t]he present invention relates to the
field of table gaming, particularly electronic table gaming, and more
particularly with respect to electronic gaming tables using virtual playing
cards.” Spec. 1, ll. 6–8.
CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 12 are the independent claims on appeal and recite:
1. An electronic gaming table for execution of playing card
games among multiple players comprising a display screen
where at least one random virtual playing card is virtually
delivered to individual player positions for each of the multiple
players, the electronic gaming table comprising the display
screen, a processor associated with memory, player input
controls and a playing card masking element at each player
position, wherein:
the playing card masking system at each player position is
physically supported at a distance between 0.5 and 5 millimeters
over the display screen at an individual position that is a portion
of the display screen where the processor directs delivery of the
at least one random virtual playing card virtual face down;
the playing card masking system comprising a three-
dimensional element having at least a visible light transmissive
line of sight between the individual position and a player at the
individual player position, while excluding visible light
transmission to player positions across from or adjacent to the
individual player position; and
wherein the player card masking system excludes visible
light transmission to player positions across from or adjacent to
the individual player position at least when the player at the
individual player position activates revelation of at least a portion
of the face of the playing card that is face down under the player
card masking system.
Appeal 2019-004748
Application 15/959,186

3
12. A method of executing a playing card game among
multiple players on an electronic gaming table in which virtual
playing cards are displayed by computer direction onto a display
screen, with at least one random virtual playing card delivered to
individual display areas at an individual player position for
individual ones of the multiple players being covered by a
physical playing card masking system supported by the
electronic gaming table, wherein the at least one random virtual
playing card is delivered to the individual player position with its
virtual face down, and is masked through forward-facing sides
and side-facing sides of the player masking system, wherein the
physical playing card masking system is physically supported at
a distance between 0.5 and 5 millimeters over the display screen
at each individual player position.
Appeal Br. 24–26.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–6 and 12–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Arezina2 in view of Schwartz.3
DISCUSSION
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Arezina teaches a
gaming table including a display screen and a playing card masking system
as claimed, except that the Examiner acknowledges that Arezina does not
teach that the masking system is supported at a distance from the display, as
claimed. Final Act. 3. However, the Examiner finds that Schwartz teaches a
similar masking system that includes a gap distance between the masking
system and a display. Id. (citing Schwartz ¶ 53). The Examiner determines
that it would have been obvious to include such a gap in Arezina’s system to

2 Arezina et al., US 2010/0130280 A1, pub. May 27, 2010.
3 Schwartz et al., US 2014/0226093 A1, pub. Aug. 14, 2014.
Appeal 2019-004748
Application 15/959,186

4
allow for installation and replacement of the masking system without
damaging the underlying display. Id. at 3–4. Regarding the specific gap
distance required by the claim, the Examiner determines that it would have
been an obvious design choice and that providing only a small gap would
prevent debris from getting under the masking system while also allowing
the device to serve its masking function. Id. at 4.
Appellant first argues that Schwartz does not provide the properties
required by claim 1, i.e., Schwartz does not disclose excluding visible light
transmission to player positions across from or adjacent to the individual
player position. Appeal Br. 10–12. Appellant asserts that “Schwartz has no
functional capability” to perform this function, and thus, Appellant asserts
that “there is no evidence of record supporting or enabling obviousness of
this” requirement of the claims. Id. at 12. We are not persuaded by this
argument. Rather, as the Examiner explains, the rejection relies on Arezina
as disclosing this feature of the claim. Ans. 3–4. And Arezina provides
evidence of such, as cited by the Examiner. Id. Specifically, Arezina
discloses “privacy filters [that] may be used to permit each player to view
his own area, and the common area, but not the other player’s areas.”
Arezina ¶ 156. Based on this evidence, we find that Arezina at least
suggests that light transmission is excluded by a privacy filter to players that
are across from or adjacent to a player’s own area.
Appellant also argues that Arezina does not teach the claimed
structure because Arezina only teaches masking filters that are laminated
onto or otherwise physically attached to the viewing surface of a display.
Reply Br. 4–6. We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner does
not rely on Arezina for the claimed distance between the masking system
Appeal 2019-004748
Application 15/959,186

5
and the display screen. Rather, the Examiner relies on Schwartz as
disclosing a gap between the masking system and the display screen, and the
Examiner determines that the specific distance would have been obvious
based on the combination of references. See Final Act. 3–4.
Next, Appellant argues that “[t]here is no evidence of the recited
dimension of 0.5 to 5 millimeters” and “[t]he rejection cannot assume
specific numerical limitations without evidence of their obviousness.”
Appeal Br. 12. In support of this argument, Appellant argues that any air
gap present in Schwartz’s device is at least an order of magnitude different
than the distance required by the claim. Id.; see also Reply Br. 9–10. More
specifically, Appellant asserts that the dimensions provided in Schwartz’s
disclosure indicate that the claimed width is at least 400 times more than the
width of Schwartz’s air gap. Id. at 10. Appellant also argues that “[t]he
functional purpose of the air gap does not suggest obviousness of the recited
physical spacing.” Id.
We disagree. The Examiner finds that Schwartz discloses a masking
system that provides a gap between the system and a display. Final Act. 3
(citing Schwartz Fig. 9; ¶ 53). The Examiner determines it would have been
obvious to use a masking system with a gap, as taught by Schwartz, to allow
installation by a consumer and to ensure that a display is not damaged when
the masking system is installed. Id. at 3–4. The Examiner then determines
that the specific distance of the gap would have been an obvious design
choice that does not affect the function of the masking system. Id. at 4. The
Examiner also indicates that the specific dimension of the gap depends on
maintaining the functionality of the system for masking and limiting the
susceptibility of debris being inserted between the display and the masking
Appeal 2019-004748
Application 15/959,186

6
system. Id. Finally, the Examiner notes that the “[S]pecification does not
teach that this distance is provided for a particular purpose, solve a stated
problem, or serve a particular function.” Id.
We determine that the Examiner’s analysis provides sufficient
reasoning to show that the claimed dimension would have been obvious.
Notably, Appellant does not address specifically the Examiner’s reasoning
and only indicates that Schwartz discloses a much smaller gap distance.
And to the extent Appellant proposes a specific length of Schwartz’s gap, we
note that Schwartz does not expressly disclose any distance for the gap and
does not indicate that the figures provided are to scale. Further, Appellant
has not shown that any specific gap distance in Schwartz serves a particular
purpose that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to be different
than the purpose discussed by the Examiner. Finally, the Specification
discloses only that the physical positioning of the masking system at the
claimed distance “is primarily provided so that the card masking systems
[fit] onto an existing electronic gaming table.” Spec. 7, ll. 7–12. It is not
clear from this disclosure that the specific distance is critical and only
implies that a gap exists because the system is intended to be placed over
existing tables. This function is similarly provided by Schwartz, which
allows for the masking system to be applied to an existing display. See
Schwartz ¶ 53.
A so-called “design choice” rationale, such as the Examiner relies
upon, has been deemed appropriate where one prior art element or property
is proposed to be substituted for another that achieves the same purpose. See
ACCO Brands Corp. v. Fellowes, Inc., 813 F.3d 1361, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(“The prior art consistently locates the two sensors at issue in the shredder’s
Appeal 2019-004748
Application 15/959,186

7
feed, and no party disputes that an ordinary artisan would have found this
the obvious location for the combination of sensors. The ordinary artisan
would then be left with two design choices.”); Ex parte Maeda, Appeal
2010-009814, 2012 WL 5294326, at *3 (PTAB Oct. 23, 2012) (informative).
Cf. In re Gal, 980 F.2d 717, 719 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“The Board held that Gal
had simply made an obvious design choice. However, the different
structures of Gal and Matsumura achieve different purposes.”) Based on the
foregoing, we determine that the Examiner has made a sufficient showing to
support reliance on design choice with respect to the combination proposed.
Appellant also argues that the specific structure of Schwartz requires
masking devices that are adhered to the viewing surface of the game table.
Appeal Br. 14–18. With respect to this argument, Appellant asserts that
Schwartz’s structure does not afford the same benefits as Appellant’s
invention, including the economic benefits of being able to replace masking
devices without replacement of the display. Id. at 18. However, this
argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, which only
requires that the masking system is “physically supported at a distance . . .
over the display” and does not recite any specific requirements for the
connection between the masking system and the display. Claim 1 is also
silent regarding any requirements with respect to the ability to replace any
masking system.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of any error in the
rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2–6 and 17
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein forward-
facing and side-facing sides of the playing card masking system decrease
Appeal 2019-004748
Application 15/959,186

8
light transmission upon player activation.” Appeal Br. 25. Appellant argues
that there is no evidence in the record showing or suggesting this property.
Appeal Br. 12–13. More specifically, Appellant asserts that the sides of
Schwartz’s masking system include a bezel and there is no evidence that this
bevel has variable light transmission properties, such that they could be
activated by a player. Id.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument. With respect to this
claim, the Examiner finds that “Arezina teaches masking the forward-facing
and side-facing sides of playing cards with a masking system that decreases
light transmission.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner also finds that Schwartz
teaches user activation of the system. Ans. 7. The Examiner finds that “the
applied prior art teaches forward-facing (on axis) and side-facing sides (off
axis) of the playing card masking system decreasing light transmission upon
player activation. Id. at 7–8. Claim 1 requires reduction in the transmission
of light in the line of sight between a player position and players across from
or adjacent to that player position. Claim 2 further limits this claim by
specifically requiring that the light transmitted through the front and side
faces of the masking system is decreased. Thus, we agree with the
Appellant that the claim requires reducing light transmission through the
sides of the system upon player activation and not merely reducing light
transmission from the front surface in the direction of a side facing or
forward facing player. See Reply Br. 6–7. The Examiner has not pointed to
any evidence showing that light transmission is decreased through the sides
of any masking system in the prior art or that it would have been obvious to
do so.
Appeal 2019-004748
Application 15/959,186

9
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 2.
For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3–6 and 17,
each of which ultimately depends from claim 2.
Claims 12–15
Claim 12 is an independent method claim that requires delivering a
virtual playing card to a player’s display area and using a physical masking
system such that the virtual playing card is “masked through forward-facing
sides and side-facing sides of the player masking system.” Appeal Br. 25.
As discussed above with respect to claim 2, the Examiner finds that Arezina
teaches a masking system in which a virtual card “is masked through
forward-facing sides and side-facing sides of the player masking system.”
Final Act. 6 (citing Arezina ¶¶ 155–158). Yet, similar to claim 2, the claim
requires that the masking system masks the card through the sides of the
device and not simply on a line of sight from the front face of the device to
players adjacent to and across from the masking system. The cited portions
of Arezina do not address masking through the sides of the device. The
Examiner does not point to, or otherwise provide, evidence or reasoning
establishing that such a feature would have been obvious.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 12.
We also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 13–15 for the same
reasons.
Claim 16
Claim 16 depends from claim 1 and recites: “the virtual playing card
masking system is hinged to a frame surrounding the display screen.”
Appeal Br. 26. The Examiner finds that the combination of art teaches a
system that is hinged to a frame as claimed based on the teaching of Arezina.
Appeal 2019-004748
Application 15/959,186

10
Final Act. 9 (citing Arezina ¶ 173). Appellant argues that Arezina “is
absolutely devoid of any evidence” showing a playing card system that is
hinged to a frame. Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis omitted). However, we agree
with the Examiner that “Arezina teaches several alternative arrangements
including wherein the virtual playing card masking system is hinged to a
frame surrounding the display screen.” Ans. 9–10. Specifically, Arezina
teaches that the masking system may include “a flexible film or piece of
plastic with a mirrored surface [that] might be hinged to the surface of a
multi-player table” so that a player may “‘turn-over’ the edge of the display .
. . to see what is reflected on the surface [] of the mirror.” Arezina ¶ 173.
Given this disclosure, we disagree with Appellant’s contention that the
Examiner does not provide any evidence in the art with respect to the
rejection of claim 16.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 16.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1 and 16. We REVERSE the
rejection of claims 2–6, 12–15, and 17.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 12–17 103 Arezina,
Schwartz
1, 16 2–6, 12–
15, 17

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 IN PART