Ex Parte 8087984 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2015

95002145 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2015)

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.
95/002,145 09/06/2012 8087984 137251RXA 7555
38834 7590 09/29/2015
WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
1250 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, NW
SUITE 700
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
EXAMINER
SAADAT, CAMERON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2015 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 APPEALS BOARD
____________________

LT GAME INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
Requester and Appellants,

v.

INTERNATIONAL GAMING SUPPORT OF AMERICA, LLC,
Owner

____________________

Appeal 2015-004781
Reexamination Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, DENISE M. POTHIER, and ERIC B. CHEN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

2
I. STATEMENT OF CASE
LT Game International Limited, made a request for inter partes
reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,087,984 B2 (“the ’984 patent”) issued to
Kenichi Okujyo and Tomoyuki Hashimoto, entitled Baccarat Game System,
Method of Using Baccarat Game System, Baccarat Game Program and Recording
Medium. The ’984 patent issued January 3, 2012, and International Gaming
Support of America, LLC is the real party in interest. PO Resp. Br.2. 1
We have been informed that there are no known, related proceedings
concerning the ’984 patent. 3PR App. Br. 4; PO Resp. Br.2.
Requester appeals from the decision in the RAN finding patentable claims
1–10, 12, and 13 of the ’984 patent. 3PR App. Br.1, 5; RAN 1. Claim 11 has been
canceled. RAN 1. Owner filed a Respondent Brief, and Requester filed a Rebuttal
Brief. See generally PO Resp. Br. and 3PR Reb. Br.
The Examiner’s Answer relies solely on the RAN, incorporating it by
reference. See Ans. 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315 (pre-AIA).
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to confirm claims 1–10, 12, and 13,
designating our reversal as new grounds of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b).

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed January 17,
2014; (2) the Respondent Brief (Resp. Br.) filed April 1, 2014; (3) the Examiner’s
Answer (Ans.) mailed September 26, 2014; (4) the Rebuttal Brief (Reb. Br.) filed
October 24, 2014; (5) the Examiner’s Right of Appeal (RAN) mailed October 23,
2013; (5); and (6) the Action Closing Prosecution (ACP) mailed May 10, 2013.

Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

3
Illustrative original claim 10 read as follows with emphases added:   
10. A baccarat game system employing cards, the baccarat game system
having a plurality of states during the progress of a game, and each state
having a status number assigned thereto, the baccarat game system
comprising:
a dealer’s game table;
a shooter;
card image capture means for capturing images of cards in a baccarat
game actually performed on the dealer's game table;
shooter image capture means for capturing the image of the state of a
shooter containing unused cards;
an image server having a card image delivery means for delivering the
card images captured by the card image capture means in real time and a
shooter image delivery means for delivering a shooter image captured by the
shooter image capture means in real time;
a database server;
a dealer's terminal for use by a dealer, wherein the dealer’s terminal has
means for inputting game result information about the result of a game and
the appearance of a card, and means for sending commands to change the
state of the system to advance the game to allow betting by players when
cards are set in the shooter, to change the state of the system to notify
players of imminent termination of the game, to change the state of the
system to advance the game to allow betting by players if there have been no
players, to change the state of the system to notify players that no further
bets can be placed, to change the state of the system to display on the
player's terminal whether the player has won or lost and the allotment for the
respective players, and to change the state of the system to terminate the
shooter if the dealer observes that the shooter does not have the necessary
cards for the game;
an administrative terminal for use by a game administrator, wherein the
administrative terminal has means for sending commands to change the
state of the system to advance the game to an interruption mode if any
system trouble occurs, to change the state of the system to advance the game
to an appearance table correction mode or a result input correction mode if
the administrator finds any mistake in past data, to change the state of the
system to advance the game to allow betting by players if there have been no
players, to change the state of the system to advance the game to re-start
Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

4
with a new shooter after the state of the system has been changed to
terminate the shooter, to change the state of the system to advance the game
to finish;
at least one player’s terminal for use by a game player, wherein each
player's terminal is spaced from the dealer's game table and has means for
inputting bet information of the player; and
means for determining which of the dealer's terminal, the administrative
terminal and the player’s terminal are permitted to be operated depending
on the status numbers assigned to the states of the system during the
progress of the game.

App. Br., Claims App’x.
A. Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Vuong ’552 US 5,762,552 June 9, 1998
Franchi US 5,770,533 June 23, 1998
Meissner US 5,779,546 July 14, 1998
Letovsky US 2002/0147047 A1 Oct. 10, 2002
Vuong ’997 US 2003/0003997 A1 Jan. 2, 2003
LeMay US 2003/078103 A1 Apr. 24, 2003
Hill US 6,582,301 B2 June 24, 2003
Rafaeli WO 00/40313 July 13, 2000

B. Disputed Non-Adopted or Withdrawn Rejections
The Examiner did not adopt or withdrew the rejections of claims 1–10, 12,
and 13 that are appealed by Requester. The proposed rejections are:

Reference(s) Basis Claims Last adopted
Letovsky, Vuong ’997,
Rafaeli, and Meissner § 103(a) 1–10, 12, 13 ACP 3–11
Letovsky, Vuong ’997,
Rafaeli, and LeMay § 103(a) 1–10, 12, 13 ACP 11–13
Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

5
Letovsky, Vuong ’997,
Rafaeli, and Franchi § 103(a) 1–10, 12, 13 ACP 13–15
Letovsky, Vuong ’997,
Rafaeli, and Vuong ’552 § 103(a) 1–10, 12, 13 ACP 16–17
Letovsky, Vuong ’997,
and Rafaeli § 103(a) 1–10, 12, 13
Non-Final
Act. 3
Letovsky, Vuong ’997,
Rafaeli, and Hill § 103(a) 1–10, 12, 13
2 Non-Final Act. 4

3PR App. Br.11.

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified
by Requester, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf. Ex
parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (citing In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). “Any arguments or authorities not
included in the briefs permitted under this section or [37 C.F.R.] §§ 41.68 and
41.71 will be refused consideration by the Board, unless good cause is shown.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.66(c)(1)(vii).
Based on the disputed errors presented by Requester, the main issues on
appeal are whether the Examiner erred in finding the cited prior art fails to teach or
suggest:
(1) a “means for determining which of the dealer’s terminal, the
administrative terminal and the player’s terminal are permitted to be operated
depending on the status numbers assigned to the states of the system during the
progress of the game” recited in independent claims 1 and 10 and

2 For the last two proposed rejections based on Letovsky, Vuong ’997, and Rafaeli
alone or with Hill, Requester mistakenly includes canceled claim 11.
Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

6
(2) “the administrative terminal has means for sending commands to change
the state of the system to advance the game to an interruption mode if any system
trouble occurs, to change the state of the system to advance the game to an
appearance table correction mode or a result input correction mode if the
administrator finds any mistake in past data” recited in independent claims 1 and
10?

III. ANALYSIS
A. Preliminaries
As a preliminary matter, Requester argues that certain claims (e.g., claims 1,
6, 10, 13) are (1) improper, reciting a method that depends from a system claims,
or (2) fail to satisfy the requirements set forth for 35 U.S.C. § 112 or under
35 U.S.C. § 101. 3PR App. Br.12, 23; 3PR Reb. Br.10–12, 15–16. Requester
recognizes that the rejection for original, unamended claims based on 35 U.S.C. §
112 “are outside of the scope of the instant reexamination proceeding.” 3PR App.
Br.12. As such, any proposed rejections for claims 1–10, 12, and 13 based on 35
U.S.C. § 112 will not be addressed. 37 C.F.R. §1.906; see also Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2658. Similarly, whether certain claims
are eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 will not considered in this proceeding. Id. To
the extent Requester is arguing these claims should be objected to, we note that
such issues will not be addressed on appeal. See MPEP § 1201.
Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

7
B. Claim Construction
When a claim uses “means for” language, there is a presumption that the
claim invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.3 See Biomedino L.L.C. v. Waters Techs.
Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Such means-plus-function limitations
shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the
specification and its equivalents. In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195
(Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc).
For computer-implemented, means-plus-function limitations reciting a
function that cannot be performed by a general purpose computer without special
programming, the disclosed structure must include the algorithm for performing
the claimed function. Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (citing Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328,
1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). “Simply disclosing software, however, ‘without providing
some detail about the means to accomplish the function[,] is not enough.’” See
Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340-41; see also Function
Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting
Noah, 675 F.3d at 1312)). “[T]he patent must disclose, at least to the satisfaction
of one of ordinary skill in the art, enough of an algorithm to provide the necessary
structure under § 112, ¶ 6 . . . . [A] patentee [may] express that algorithm in any
understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow
chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.” Finisar, 523 F.3d
at 1340 (citation omitted).

3 Paragraph 6 of 35 U.S.C. § 112 was replaced with newly designated § 112(f)
when § 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29 (AIA),
took effect on September 16, 2012. Because the application resulting in the patent
was filed before that date, we will refer to the pre-AIA version of § 112.
Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

8
1. means for determining which of the dealer’s terminal, the administrative
terminal and the player’s terminal are permitted to be operated
depending on the status numbers assigned to the states of the system
during the progress of the game

Independent claims 1 and 10 recite a “means for determining which of the
dealer’s terminal, the administrative terminal and the player's terminal are
permitted to be operated depending on the status numbers assigned to the states of
the system during the progress of the game.” The disclosure of the ’984 patent
provides a flowchart in Figure 6 and an accompanying discussion of the flow chart
of the process of determining which of the terminals is permitted to be operated
(e.g., at least one of dealer, administrative, or player terminals) depending on the
status numbers (e.g., 97, 0, 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 90, 95) assigned to the system states
during the progress of the game. The ’984 patent 9:44–12:12; Fig. 6. For
example, when the status number is 2 is assigned to the system state during game
progress (i.e., step S305) only the dealer’s and player’s terminals can be operated.
The ’984 patent 10:37–49; Fig. 6. Many other examples exist. Id. at 9:44–12:12;
Fig. 6. Owner also maps this portion of the disclosure of the ’984 patent to the
corresponding structure for this recitation. PO Resp. Br.4 (citing the ’984 patent
9:62–12:12).
We determine the flow chart shown in Figure 6 along with the
accompanying description in the ’984 patent describe a sufficient algorithm to
provide the necessary structure under § 112, ¶ 6 for the means-plus-function
limitation to the satisfaction of one having ordinary skill in the art.

Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

9
2. the administrative terminal has means for sending commands to change
the state of the system to advance the game to an interruption mode if any
system trouble occurs and to change the state of the system to advance
the game to an appearance table correction mode or a result input
correction mode if the administrator finds any mistake in past data

Claims 1 and 10 further recite “wherein the administrative terminal has
means for sending commands . . . .” Before discussing the corresponding structure
for this means-plus-function limitation, we address some preliminary claim
construction issues. Requester contends that the “if” statements (e.g., “if any
system trouble occurs” or “if the administrator finds any mistake in past data”) in
this claim element are optional limitations. 3PR App. Br.14–15. We agree with
Owner that an “if” limitation is conditional rather than optional. PO Resp. Br.6.
Additionally, we agree that the “if” recitations are distinguishable from In re
Johnson, 435 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006), which determines the word “may”
recites an optional limitation. Id. As such, such conditional recitations (e.g., the
“if” clauses) in claim 1 require “the administrative terminal ha[ving] means for
sending commands” to operate under the certain conditions recited.
Citing the MPEP § 2111.04, Requester implies that the “wherein” clause in
claim 1 is also an optional limitation and should not be given patentable weight.
See 3PR App. Br.15. However, we note that the MPEP § 2111.04 indicates that a
“wherein” clause may raise questions about its limiting effect “depend[ing] on the
specific facts of the case,” such as when the clause expresses the intended result of
process step. MPEP § 2111.04. This section of the MPEP does not state that the
limitation is optional. Moreover, Requester has not demonstrated sufficiently, and
we are not persuaded, that the “wherein” clause of claims 1 and 10 is merely
Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

10
expressing an intended use of the recited systems, such that the “wherein”
recitation has no limiting effect.
Requester construes the limitation, a “means for sending commands to
change the state of the system to advance the game to an interruption mode if any
system trouble occurs, to change the state of the system to advance the game to an
appearance table correction mode or a result input correction mode if the
administrator finds any mistake in past data, to change the state of the system to
advance the game to allow betting by players if there have been no players, to
change the state of the system to advance the game to re-start with a new shooter
after the state of the system has been changed to terminate the shooter, to change
the state of the system to advance the game to finish,” to determine its structure
and its equivalents. 3PR App. Br.15–17. Requester interprets the corresponding
structure and the structural equivalents for this limitation to be “a computer
according to any suitable program” along with “manually actuatable buttons of the
administrative terminal predetermined to command the changes of the state.” 3PR
App. Br.16 (citing Request 42, 44). Agreeing with the Requester at least in part,
the Examiner finds the corresponding structure for this recitation is “‘manually-
actuatable buttons of the administrative terminal.’” RAN 11–12 (citing Request
19).
Just like the “means for determining” element, we agree that this limitation
invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. See Biomedino, 490 F.3d at 950. As such, this
limitation shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the
’984 patent’s specification and its equivalents. Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1195. The
’984 patent discusses that the operation dependent state “are realized by a
computer according to any suitable program.” The ’984 patent 12:20–21 (quoting
Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

11
at Request 12). Such a general purpose computer without special programming is
insufficient structure alone to satisfy the requirements set forth under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, ¶ 6. Noah, 675 F.3d at 1312.
The ’984 patent further describes that the administrative terminal can push
predetermined buttons “[i]f any trouble occurs,” “[i]f the administrator finds any
mistake in the past data,” and “to change the state wherein the game can be
advanced” in different scenarios that changes the game or system’s state. The ’984
patent 10:14–21, 32–36; 11:7–16, 21–23, 28–37, 41–45, 50–54, 58–61; 11:66–
12:3; Fig. 6 (some of these passages cited at Request 16–18). Thus, given the
disclosure, we find that the corresponding structure for the recited limitation in
claim 1 of “administrative terminal has means for sending commands” are the
manually-actuatable buttons and corresponding software or algorithm that perform
the changes to the system’s state under the recited conditions, including “to change
the state of the system to advance the game to an interruption mode if any system
trouble occurs, [and] to change the state of the system to advance the game to an
appearance table correction mode or a result input correction mode if the
administrator finds any mistake in past data.”
C. The Rejections
Requester proposes to reject claims 1–10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
based on Letovsky, Vuong ’997, and Rafaeli alone or in combination with another
reference. These additional references include Meissner, LeMay, Franchi, Vuong
’552, and Hill. To clarify, the rejections of these claims do not “rel[y] on
Letovsky, Vuong '997, Rafaeli, Meissner, LeMay, Franchi, Vuong '552 and Hill as
teaching this limitation.” 3PR Reb. Br.10 (italics added). Rather, the rejections
are as follows: (1) Letovsky, Vuong ’997, and Rafaeli (Group B, Ground 1), (2)
Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

12
Letovsky, Vuong ’997, Rafaeli, and Hill (Group B, Ground 6), (3) Letovsky,
Vuong ’997, Rafaeli, and Meissner (Group A, Ground 2), (4) Letovsky, Vuong
’997, Rafaeli, and LeMay (Group A, Ground 3), (5) Letovsky, Vuong ’997,
Rafaeli, and Franchi (Group A, Ground 4), and (6) Letovsky, Vuong ’997, Rafaeli,
and Vuong ’552 (Group A, Ground 4). 4
We turn to each of these proposed rejections.
1. Letovsky, Vuong ’997, and Rafaeli (Group B, Ground 1)
Requester contends that each of Vuong ’997 and Rafaeli teaches the “means
for determining which of the dealer’s terminal, the administrative terminal and the
player’s terminal are permitted to be operated depending on the status numbers
assigned to the states of the system during the progress of the game” recited in
claims 1 and 10. 3PR App. Br.23– 24 (citing Vuong ’997 ¶¶ 58, 61, 77, 92, 93;
Rafaeli 13:15–24). In the Rebuttal Brief, Requester further argues that Owner is
attacking Vuong ’997 and Rafaeli individually and provides further citations to the
references to support the position that prior art teaches the recited “means for
determining . . . .” 3PR Reb. Br.12–14 (further citing Vuong ’997 ¶ 57, LeMay ¶
191, Vuong ’552, 15:29–16:14, Meissner 7:23–33, 5:6–7, 6:48–49, 4:8–12,
Request , Claim Chart CC-A, pp. 45–48, 123–126). Because there is no reliance
on LeMay, Vuong ’552, Franchi, or Meissner for this rejection, they will not be
discussed in this section.
The Examiner, in contrast, finds the prior art does not teach or suggest the
recited means. RAN 15–18. Specifically, “Letovsky is silent with respect to

4 The briefs discuss the disputed rejections as Group A, Grounds 1 and 6 and
Group B, Grounds 2–5. Accordingly, we refer to these groups and grounds
throughout the Opinion.
Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

13
claimed feature” (RAN 16), which Requester does not dispute. The Examiner
further determines both Vuong ’997 and Rafaeli do not teach status numbers
assigned to various game states as recited. RAN 16–18. Owner concurs with the
Examiner. PO Resp. Br.10–11.
Vuong ’997 discusses a network manager receiving information from a
player and a process to verify the player’s identity and to authorize play. Vuong
’997 ¶¶ 57–58. Vuong ’997 further discusses that backend manager 608 has a set
of rules to determine how to arbitrate, suspend, and terminate play. Vuong ’997
¶ 58. Vuong ’997 also addresses different managers involved in determining
whether authorized players have placed a wager in a timely manner and accept
such wagers. Vuong ’997 ¶ 61. Moreover, Vuong ’997 teaches how managers
proceed with the game when a response is not provided in a timely manner.
Vuong ’997 ¶ 77. These passages in Vuong ’997 discuss various operations of
different managers and players. Even so, we agree with the Examiner that there is
no discussion or suggestion in Vuong ’997 concerning assigned status numbers for
system states during a game. RAN 18.
Requester contends that the computer code (e.g., “rules engine that is an
executable module of computer code”) in Vuong ’997 “would necessarily assign a
status number to the state of the system (e.g., authorized to play, terminated).”
3PR App. Br.24. Requester provides inadequate supporting evidence for this
position or for demonstrating that Vuong ’997’s computer code of the rules engine
would necessarily have a status number associated with state of the system. Id. In
other words, Vuong ’997 does not discuss status numbers and can function to
authorize and terminate play without status numbers. Accordingly, based on the
record, Vuong ’997 fails to disclose or teach determining which terminals are
Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

14
permitted to be operated depending on the assigned status numbers for system
states as recited in claims 1 and 10.
Additionally, Vuong ’997 discusses network map 912, which includes tables
(e.g., T1–T4) associated with various managers. Vuong ’997 ¶ 92; Fig. 9B.
Vuong ’997 discusses Table Status 916 that indicates whether a table is active such
that a game is being conducted currently or inactive such that a table is presently
available for play. Vuong ’997 ¶ 93; Fig. 9B. Vuong ’997 also shows a player’s
status. Vuong ’997 ¶ 94, Fig. 9B. Even so, these passages in Vuong ’997 do not
discuss assigned status numbers for system states during a game and determining
which terminals are permitted to be operated depending on the assigned status
numbers. Moreover, Requester has not presented a reason with some rational
underpinning that the above teachings in Vuong ’997 related to table and player
statuses would suggest to an ordinarily skilled artisan assigning status numbers to
system states during the progress of the game and using the status numbers to
determine which terminals are permitted to be operable.
As such, Vuong ’997 does not teach or suggest the structure (e.g., the
algorithm shown in Figure 6 of the ’984 patent, as discussed above) or its
equivalent to a “means for determining which of the dealer’s terminal, the
administrative terminal and the player’s terminal are permitted to be operated
depending on the status numbers assigned to the states of the system during the
progress of the game” recited in claims 1 and 10.
As for Rafaeli, Requester argues “Rafaeli does in fact teach status number
assigned to the various game states. See Rafaeli column 13, lines 15-24 teaches
status numbers SPl, SP2, SP3, SP4, SP5 assigned to various game states.” 3PR
App. Br.24; Reb Br. 14 (citing Rafaeli 13:15–24); 3PR Reb. Br.11 (citing Request,
Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

15
Claim Chart CC-A, pp. 45–48, 123–126 (which further cites Rafaeli, Fig. 2’s
“V.C.G. Software and computers”)). Owner disagrees, stating “[n]one of these
descriptions [in Rafaeli] provides a teaching of status numbers assigned to the
states of the system during the progress of the game, as recited in claims 1 and 10.”
PO Resp. Br.11.
Rafaeli does not contain columns, but rather pages. Turning to page 13,
lines 15 through 24, we agree with Owner that this passage fails to discuss
SP1–SP5 as Requester indicates. 3PR App. Br.24; PO Resp. Br.11. We also agree
with Owner that the only discussion of SP1–SP5 is located on page 20, lines 10
through 15,5 which was not cited by Requester. PO Resp. Br.11. Here, Rafaeli
discusses betting statuses of each player as SP1 through SP5. Rafaeli 20:10–15.
Yet, this passage does not explain how a player’s betting status are status numbers
assigned to the system states during the progress of the game. See also RAN 18.
Also, even assuming these player’s betting statuses are considered “status numbers
assigned to states of the system” as recited, the record fails to explain further how
this teaching in Rafaeli teaches or suggests that the determination of which
terminals that are permitted to be operable depends on these status numbers as
recited in claims 1 and 10.
Lastly, Figure 2 of Rafaeli shows “V.C.G. Software” and various computers
having this software. Rafaeli, Fig. 2. Yet, Requester provides no explanation how
this teaches or suggests to one skilled in the art a technique for determining which
terminals are permitted to operate depending on the status numbers assigned to the
system states during the progress of play as recited.

5 Owner mistakenly refers to line “115.”
Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

16
Accordingly, neither Vuong ’997 nor Rafaeli alone or when combined with
Letovsky teaches or suggests the “means for determining which of the dealer’s
terminal, the administrative terminal and the player's terminal are permitted to be
operated depending on the status numbers assigned to the states of the system
during the progress of the game” recited in claims 1 and 10.
For the foregoing reasons, Requester has not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s position to withdrawn the rejections of claims 1–10, 12, and 13 based
on Letovsky, Vuong ’997, and Rafaeli.
2. Letovsky, Vuong ’997, Rafaeli, and Hill (Group B, Ground 6)
The respective positions of Requester, the Examiner, and Owner concerning
Letovsky, Vuong ’997, and Rafaeli are discussed above when addressing the
rejection labeled as Group B, Ground 1. For the reasons previously stated, we are
not persuaded that the Examiner erred in withdrawing this rejection and refer to the
above discussion for details.
This rejection further relies on Hill to teach the disputed “means for
determining” phrase. ACP 4 (citing to Request, pp. 293–351 and Claim Chart CC-
A). Specifically, the rejection also cites to various portions of Hill. See id. and
Request 317 (citing Hill 13:3–17, 25:33–26:42), Claim Chart CC-A, p. 56–58,
134–136 (citing Hill 25:33–26:42). We agree with the Examiner that “these
citations are silent with respect to having status numbers assigned to various game
states.” RAN 21.
Hill discusses the ability of dealers and supervisors to monitor games,
including cross-checking “status on various displays” and that discrepancies
between reports and what the physical cards and chips on the game table can be
identified and investigated. Hill 13:3–17. Hill further discusses software used to
Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

17
identify and record card values, card rank, and other information related to the card
game, including statistical and betting information. Hill 25:33–26:42. Yet, these
passages fail to describe or suggest assigning status numbers to system states
during a game and, even more so, to determine which terminals are permitted to
operate depending on status numbers as recited.
The Examiner discusses yet other passages in Hill in concluding that Hill
does not teach or suggest the “means for determining” step. RAN 21 (discussing
Hill 16:12-16; Figs. 6, 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17). Column 16, lines 12 through 16
also discusses how supervisors can monitor and enter information related to game
play but does not discuss determining which terminals are permitted to be operated
depending on an assigned status numbers to system states. Hill 16:12–16.
Additionally, Figures 6, 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 show keyboards for inputting
information, computers (e.g., terminals) and memory, but fail to include any
information related to status numbers assigned to system states used to determine
which terminals are permitted to operate.
Accordingly, none of Vuong ’997, Rafaeli, or Hill taken alone or
collectively with Letovsky teaches or suggests the “means for determining which
of the dealer’s terminal, the administrative terminal and the player’s terminal are
permitted to be operated depending on the status numbers assigned to the states of
the system during the progress of the game” recited in claims 1 and 10.
For the foregoing reasons, Requester has not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s position to withdraw the rejections of claims 1–10, 12, and 13 based on
Letovsky, Vuong ’997, Rafaeli, and Hill.

Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

18
3. Letovsky, Vuong ’997, Rafaeli, and Meissner , Letovsky, Vuong ’997,
Rafaeli, and LeMay, Letovsky, Vuong ’997, Rafaeli, and Franchi,
Letovsky, Vuong ’997, Rafaeli, and Vuong ’552 (Group A, Grounds 2–5)

The four remaining rejections discussed in this section were adopted with
modification in the ACP mailed May 10, 2013 but subsequently withdrawn in the
RAN. 3PR App. Br.21–22. Originally, the Examiner adopted Grounds 2 through
5. ACP 4–17 (citing Request 77–293, Claim Chart CC-A). However, upon further
consideration, the Examiner found “Letovsky, Vuong '997[,] Rafaeli, and
combinations thereof fail to disclose, teach, or suggest the specifically claimed
command functions of the administrative terminal.” RAN 22. Referring to the
Reply filed June 10, 2013, at page 13, the Examiner states at least two specific
limitations of the “means for sending commands” are missing from the cited art,
including a “means for sending commands to change the state of the system to
advance the game to an interruption mode if any system trouble occurs [and] to
change the state of the system to advance the game to an appearance table
correction mode or a result input correction mode if the administrator finds any
mistake in past data.” RAN 14–16, 22–23 (citing Vuong ’997 ¶¶ 53, 58, 61, 62,
73, 77 and Rafaeli 21:31, 22 (Table 4)). Owner agrees with the Examiner’s
position. PO Resp. Br.7–8 (citing Vuong ’997 ¶¶ 58, 61, 67).
As discussed above, claims 1 and 10 recite a “means for determining which
of the dealer’s terminal, the administrative terminal and the player’s terminal are
permitted to be operated depending on the status numbers assigned to the states of
the system during the progress of the game.” Claims 1 and 10 further recite “the
administrative terminal has means for sending commands to change the state of the
system to advance the game to an interruption mode if any system trouble occurs,
Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

19
to change the state of the system to advance the game to an appearance table
correction mode or a result input correction mode if the administrator finds any
mistake in past data.” For Group B, Grounds 2–5, the Examiner focuses the
reasons to allowance on the later limitation. Because of this shift, we presume the
Examiner concludes each additional reference (i.e., Meissner, LeMay, Franchi, or
Vuong ’552), when combined with Letovsky, Vuong ’997, and Rafaeli, teaches or
suggests the “means for determining” step. See RAN 22–23.
Turning to the proposed rejections, the Examiner and Owner conclude that
proposed combinations fails to teach at least two of the specifically recited
operations — “to change the state of the system to advance the game to an
interruption mode if any system trouble occurs, [and] to change the state of the
system to advance the game to an appearance table correction mode or a result
input correction mode if the administrator finds any mistake in past data.” RAN
21–23 (citing to “Reply 13,” which is Owner’s June 10, 2013 submission at page
13); PO Resp. Br.7–8. Because the above, two commands “are not based on rules
of game play,” the Examiner determines that “it would not have been obvious to
modify the administrative commands described in Vuong '997, by merely
automating rules of game play to arrive at the specifically claimed administrative
commands.” RAN 23.
In contrast, Requester contends that the cited art teaches manually-actuatable
buttons that perform the above-specifically recited operations. 3PR App. Br.17–
19. Specifically, Requester argues Vuong ’997 teaches these operations of the
“means for sending commands.” 3PR App. Br.17–20 (citing Vuong ’997 ¶¶ 57,
58, 61, 64–73, 99–105, 110–113, Figs. 10, 12, claim 17). Requester further
contends that Rafaeli teaches a keyboard as part of an administrative terminal that
Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

20
includes the means to perform the recited functions of sending commands to
change the system’s state as recited. 3PR App. Br.18–19, 21 (citing Rafaeli, Figs.
1a, 1b, 2, 20–22); 3PR Reb. Br. 4, 5 and 7–8 (citing Rafaeli, claim 9; Vuong ’997
¶¶ 15, 57, 73, 77).
Based on the record, we agree with Requester and newly reject claims 1–10,
12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on: (1) Letovsky, Vuong ’997, Rafaeli,
and Meissner, (2) Letovsky, Vuong ’997, Rafaeli, and LeMay, (3) Letovsky,
Vuong ’997, Rafaeli, and Franchi, or (4) Letovsky, Vuong ’997, Rafaeli, and
Vuong ’552.
First, as cited by Requester (Request, Claim Chart CC-A, pp. 25, 32), the
administrative terminal in Vuong ’997 includes both the pit boss manager 610 and
the backend manager 608. Given that claims 1 and 10 have the transitional phrase
“comprising” and the indefinite article “an,” we agree that Vuong ’997’s boss
manager and the backend manager collectively can be reasonably mapped to the
recited “an administrative terminal.” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concept, Inc. et al., 223
F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (indicating “an indefinite article of ‘a’ or ‘an’ in
patent parlance carries the meaning ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing
the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’”). Additionally, both backend manager 608
and boss manager 610 are server systems with rules engines (e.g., 614 and 620
respectively) that include a set of rules (e.g., computers with suitable programs).
Vuong ’997 ¶¶ 58, 61; Fig. 6; see also Vuong ’997 ¶ 77 and Request, Claim Chart
CC-A, pp. 28, 33 (discussing rules engines 826 comprising “an executable module
of computer code.”)
Vuong ’997 further teaches backend manager 608 verifies each player is
authorized and if unauthorized, takes appropriate security measures, such as
Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

21
suspend player’s authorization or freeze player’s account. Vuong ’997 ¶ 57. This
may include suspending or terminating play if there is a disruption or unauthorized
activity is detected. Vuong ’997 ¶ 58. Both of these operations performed by
backend manager 608 teach or suggest sending commands to change the system’s
state to advance the game to an interruption mode (e.g., suspend authorization or
freeze an account) if any system trouble occurs (e.g., player is unauthorized).
Vuong ’997 ¶¶ 57–58. These findings are further supported by Vuong ’997’s
discussion that back end manager 608 can intervene and resolve problems in
accordance with the rules set. Vuong ’97 ¶¶ 66, 73 (cited at Request, pp. 32–33).
Additionally, as noted, Vuong ’997 teaches backend manager 608 can
resolve requests. Vuong ’997 ¶ 66. This includes backend manager updating the
status of the players, including prior to the termination process for a player,
permitting the player to place another wager and pit manager 610 to accept the
wager. Vuong ’997 ¶¶ 67–68. Vuong ’997 thus, teaches or suggest the backend
manager (e.g., an administrator) sending commands to change the system’s state to
advance the game to an appearance table correction mode or a result input
correction mode (e.g., backend manager 608’s resolution) if the administrator finds
any mistake in past data (e.g., status of player is incorrect to permit a timely
wager). Vuong ’997 ¶¶ 66–68.
Also, Vuong ’997 teaches a pit monitor (e.g., an administrative terminal)
permits the pit boss (e.g., a game administrator) to “monitor all gaming activities in
the pit” and “correct play of the game by the dealers and the instantaneous amounts
and the statistics of wins and losses at each table in a pit.” Vuong ’997 ¶¶ 15, 111.
This even further suggests that an administrative terminal used by a game
administrator which includes a means for sending commands (e.g., mechanism to
Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

22
correct game play) to change the system’s state to advance the game to a “result
input correction mode,” including correcting “mistake[s] in past data” were known
to ordinarily skilled artisans. Id.
When discussing pit manager 610, Vuong ’997 states that the pit manager is
a computer server system having rules engines 620 with rules to respond to various
situations as well as mechanism to monitor and correct play. Vuong ’997 ¶¶ 15,
61, 111; Fig. 6. Backend manager 608 is also described as having a set of rules
embodied in a rules engine 614 to arbitrate, suspend play, or terminate play when
there is a disruption in communications if unauthorized activity is detected. Vuong
’997 ¶¶ 58, 66–68, 73; Fig. 6 (cited at Request, Claim Chart CC-A, pp. 32–33).
However, the passages in Vuong ’997 do not articulate whether the server and
monitor associated with the pit manager to correct play or the system associated
with the backend manager to resolve issues includes manually-actuatable buttons.
That being said, at least one portion of Vuong ’997 teaches a pit boss uses a pit
monitor to “monitor all gaming activities in the pit,” suggesting some form of
manually-actuated buttons is involved when the pit boss makes corrections. See
Vuong ’997 ¶ 15. Additionally, Letovsky teaches using a computer system, and
Rafaeli teaches that “a house person” or manager has a keyboard to transmit
information related to a player. Letovsky ¶¶ 20, 83 (cited at Request 39–46) and
Rafaeli 22:10–25, claim 9; Figs. 20–22 (cited at Request 39–46 and 3PR Reb.
Br.3).
As such, when these teachings in the cited art are combined, the combination
is no more than a collection of familiar elements operating according to known
techniques and yielding no more than predictable results, including using a
keyboard (e.g., manually-actuatable buttons) to send commands to correct or
Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

23
suspend play, such as the recited “administrative terminal has means for sending
commands to change the state of the system to advance the game to an interruption
mode if any system trouble occurs, [and] to change the state of the system to
advance the game to an appearance table correction mode or a result input
correction mode if the administrator finds any mistake in past data” in claims 1 and
10. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
The Examiner provides an inadequate explanation of how the above-
discussed passages in Letovsky, Vuong ’997, and Rafaeli discussed and cited by
Requester fail to teach or suggest an administrative terminal performing the
operations “to change the state of the system to advance the game to an
interruption mode if any system trouble occurs, [and] to change the state of the
system to advance the game to an appearance table correction mode or a result
input correction mode if the administrator finds any mistake in past data.” RAN
21–23. Rather, the Examiner’s explanation is silent on these teachings and instead
focuses on what the general “rules of game play” are. RAN 23; see 3PR Reb. Br.4.
In requesting reversal, Requester contends that “[t]he Examiner has changed
position with respect to Grounds of Rejection 2-5 without any comment . . . and
ignores the additional Meissner, LeMay, Franchi and/or Vuong '552 references.”
3PR App. Br.21; see also 3PR App. Br.22, 3PR Reb. Br.8–10, and Request 77–
293, Claim Chart CC-A, pp. 1–142 (discussing how Meissner, LeMay, Franchi,
and Vuong ’552 further teach these features). We agree with Requester that the
record inadequately explains how the additional relied-upon art (i.e., Meissner,
LeMay, Franchi, and Vuong ’552) fail to teach or suggest the disputed
“administrative terminal has means for sending commands” limitation for several
proposed grounds of rejection (i.e., Group A, Grounds 2–5) purportedly not found
Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

24
in Letovsky, Vuong ’997, and Rafaeli. RAN 21–23. Accordingly, we agree that
the Examiner erred in concluding that the appealed claims with particular
recitation of the administrative terminal having means for sending commands “to
change the state of the system to advance the game to an interruption mode if any
system trouble occurs, [and] to change the state of the system to advance the game
to an appearance table correction mode or a result input correction mode if the
administrator finds any mistake in past data” recited in claims 1 and 10 are
confirmed based on the grounds proposed with Group A (i.e., Grounds 2–5).
The Examiner further contends that the remaining operations of the means
for sending commands (i.e., “to change the state of the system to advance the game
to allow betting by players if there have been no players, to change the state of the
system to advance the game to re-start with a new shooter after the state of the
system has been changed to terminate the shooter, to change the state of the system
to advance the game to finish”) are also not taught by Letovsky, Vuong ’997, and
Rafaeli. See RAN 22 (stating “upon further consideration it is the examiner's
position that Letovsky, Vuong '997[,] Rafaeli, and combinations thereof fail to
disclose, teach, or suggest the specifically claimed command functions of the
administrative terminal.”) Yet, the Examiner provides an insufficient explanation
on the record why the prior art, including Meissner, LeMay, Franchi, and Vuong
’552 relied upon in the proposed grounds, do not teach or suggest these recitations.
RAN 21–23.
As for the remaining recitations in the claims not discussed above, we adopt
the finding in the Request and statements made by the Examiner in the ACP,
referring to them for more details. ACP 3–17 (citing Request 77–293, Claims
Chart CC-A). Based on the above discussion, we enter new grounds of rejection
Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

25
for claims 1-10, 12, and 13 based on Letovsky, Vuong ’997, Rafaeli, and (1)
Meissner, (2) LeMay, (3) Franchi, or (4) Vuong ’552 under 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b).

IV. CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner’s decision determining claims 1–10, 12, and 13 are patentable
based on Letovsky, Vuong ’997, and Rafaeli or Letovsky, Vuong ’997, Rafaeli,
and Hill is affirmed.
Requester demonstrates that the Examiner erred in finding claims 1–10, 12,
and 13 patentable based on: (1) Letovsky, Vuong ’997, Rafaeli, and Meissner, (2)
Letovsky, Vuong ’997, Rafaeli, and LeMay, (3) Letovsky, Vuong ’997, Rafaeli,
and Franchi, or (4) Letovsky, Vuong ’997, Rafaeli, and Vuong ’552.
We present new grounds of rejection for claims 1–10, 12, and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on: (1) Letovsky, Vuong ’997, Rafaeli, and Meissner, (2)
Letovsky, Vuong ’997, Rafaeli, and LeMay, (3) Letovsky, Vuong ’997, Rafaeli,
and Franchi, or (4) Letovsky, Vuong ’997, Rafaeli, and Vuong ’552.

V. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(a), the above-noted reversal constitutes a new
ground of rejection. Section 41.77(b) provides that “[a] new ground of rejection . .
. shall not be considered final for judicial review.” That section also provides that
Patent Owner, WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION,
must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new grounds of
rejection to avoid termination of the appeal proceeding as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. The owner may file a response requesting
reopening of prosecution before the examiner. Such a response must be
Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

26
either an amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both.

(2) Request rehearing. The owner may request that the
proceeding be reheard under § 41.79 by the Board upon the
same record. The request for rehearing must address any
new ground of rejection and state with particularity the
points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked
in entering the new ground of rejection and also state all
other grounds upon which rehearing is sought.

In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(a)(1), the “[p]arties to the appeal may
file a request for rehearing of the decision within one month of the date of: . . .
[t]he original decision of the Board under § 41.77(a).” A request for rehearing
must be in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(b). Comments in opposition to the
request and additional requests for rehearing must be in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.79(c)-(d), respectively. Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(e), the times for requesting
rehearing under paragraph (a) of this section, for requesting further rehearing under
paragraph (c) of this section, and for submitting comments under paragraph (b) of
this section may not be extended.
An appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141-144 and 315 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.983 for an inter partes
reexamination proceeding “commenced” on or after November 2, 2002 may not be
taken “until all parties’ rights to request rehearing have been exhausted, at which
time the decision of the Board is final and appealable by any party to the appeal to
the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.81. See also MPEP § 2682 (8th ed., Rev. 8, July 2010).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
Appeal 2015-004781
Control 95/002,145
Patent 8,087,984 B2

27
Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.79.
In the event neither party files a request for rehearing within the time
provided in 37 C.F.R. § 41.79, and this decision becomes final and appealable
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.81, a party seeking judicial review must timely serve notice
on the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 90.1 and 1.983

REVERSED
37 C.F.R. §41.77(b)

FOR PATENT OWNER:

Westerman, Hattori, Daniels & Adrian, LLP
1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20036

FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTERS:

Meredith & Keyhani, PLLC
330 Madison Avenue
6th Floor
New York, NY 10017