Ex Parte Acres

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 26, 2006

09878111 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 26, 2006)

- 1 -
The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
_______________
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte JOHN F. ACRES

Appeal No. 2005-1664
Application 09/878,111

ON BRIEF

Before HAIRSTON, BARRETT, and DIXON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
final rejection of claims 49 and 54-61.
We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a method of configuring electronic
gaming machines (EGMs), such as slot machines and video poker
machines, based on the level of play of a player on multiple
gaming machines.
Appeal No. 2005-1664
Application 09/878,111
- 2 -
Claim 49 is reproduced below.
49. A method of operating electronic gaming machines
interconnected by a computer network to a host computer
comprising:
permitting play to occur at the machines;
operating a player-tracking system on the network;
monitoring the level of play of a player on multiple
gaming machines;
transmitting data relating to the monitored level over
the network;
storing the data on a computer connected to the
network;
selecting a machine being played by the player;
determining a bonus based on the monitored level; and
paying the bonus to the player via the selected
machine.
THE REFERENCE
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Olsen 6,146,273 November 14, 2000
(CIP of application 08/957,076, filed October 24, 1997)
THE REJECTION
Claims 49 and 54-61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Olsen.
We refer to the final rejection (pages referred to as
"FR__") and the examiner's answer for a statement of the
examiner's rejection, and to the brief (pages referred to as
Appeal No. 2005-1664
Application 09/878,111
- 3 -
"Br__") and reply brief (pages referred to as "RBr__") for a
statement of appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Comment on Olsen as prior art
If appellant is correct about the characterizations of this
application as a continuation or division of ancestor
applications, then Olsen is not prior art. This application is
said to be a continuation of Application 09/086,964, filed
May 29, 1998, now U.S. Patent 6,254,483, issued July 3, 2001,
which is said to be a continuation of Application 08/465,717
('717 application), filed June 6, 1995, now U.S. Patent
5,836,817, issued November 17, 1998, which is said to be a
division of Application 08/322,172 ('172 application), filed
October 12, 1994, now U.S. Patent 5,655,961, issued
August 12, 1997. Both the '717 application and the '172
application have earlier filing dates than the earliest effective
filing date of Olsen. Nevertheless, since appellant has not
argued that he is entitled to the priority dates of the earlier
applications, and since the drawing figures are different,
implying a difference in disclosure, we treat Olsen as prior art.
The rejection and arguments
Appellant argues that the examiner did not identify where
each element of the claims is disclosed in Olsen, making it
impossible to address the specifics of the rejection (Br4). It
Appeal No. 2005-1664
Application 09/878,111
- 4 -
is noted that claim 49 recites "monitoring the level of play of a
player on multiple gaming machines; ... determining a bonus based
on the monitored level; and paying the bonus to the player via
the selected machine." It is argued (Br5) that Olsen bases
eligibility on the status of the machine (whether a game has been
started within a predetermined time before the start of a bonus
mode, even where eligibility depends on other conditions such as
the insertion of a player-tracking card) rather than the status
of the player, and does not teach "monitoring the level of play
of a player on multiple gaming machines." It is argued that
claim 57 further recites "generating a computer message based on
the monitored level; issuing the message from the host computer;
and changing a configuration parameter of the selected machine
responsive to the message" and because Olsen does not teach
"monitoring the level of play of a tracked player on multiple
gaming machines," it cannot teach generating a message based on
the monitored level or changing the configuration parameter of
the selected machine responsive to the message (Br5-6).
In response, the examiner provides claim charts showing the
correspondence between claim limitations and Olsen (EA4-7). The
examiner finds that monitoring the level of play as maximum bet
at column 12, lines 35-40, of Olsen corresponds to "monitoring
the level of play of a player." The examiner finds that Olsen
discloses the use of a player tracking card and that "[i]t is an
Appeal No. 2005-1664
Application 09/878,111
- 5 -
inherent function of a player tracking card that it may be used
on multiple machines which is monitoring a level of play on
multiple machines" (EA7). With respect to the limitations of
issuing a computer message based on monitored level which causes
a change to a configuration parameter on the selected machine,
the examiner finds that the game machine generates a computer
message showing the player eligibility status and the controller
changes the status indicators on the game machine (EA8).
Appellant responds that the claimed "monitoring the level of
play of a player on multiple gaming machines" is quite different
from monitoring the level of play as a maximum bet (RBr2). It is
argued that Olsen teaches that eligibility is lost when the
player tracking card is removed and "[i]f a player loses
eligibility when he removes his card from one machine to initiate
play on another, his play is not monitored on multiple gaming
machines" (RBr2). Furthermore, it is argued that Olsen teaches
that if a player walks away from an eligible gaming machine
another player could sit down at the eligible machine and
continue play in the bonus time mode, which teaches that Olsen is
basing eligibility on the status of a single machine rather than
a player's play on multiple machines (RBr2). It is argued that
the data transmitted in Olsen is gaming machine eligibility, not
data related to the level of play of a player on multiple gaming
machines (RBr2). It is argued that since Olsen does not teach
Appeal No. 2005-1664
Application 09/878,111
- 6 -
monitoring the level of play of a player on multiple gaming
machines, it does not teach "transmitting data related to the
monitored level over the network" and "storing the data on a
computer connected to the network" as recited in claims 49 and 57
and does not teach "generating a computer message based on the
monitored level" as recited in claim 57 (RBr3).
Analysis
Initially, we must interpret what is meant by "monitoring
the level of play of a player on multiple gaming machines" since
this is the main limitation at issue. When the limitation was
added, appellant stated that the support for monitoring the level
of play of a tracked player on multiple machines can be found in
the application at, among other places, page 3, line 23 et seq.,
page 7, line 7 et seq., and page 8, line 19, line 19 et seq.
(amendment received April 1, 2003, page 4). These portions of
the specification describe tracking players using a casino-issued
player tracking card which the player inserts into a card reader
associated with each EGM. Although "monitoring the level of play
of a player on multiple gaming machines" could be interpreted to
mean the level of play on multiple gaming machines at the same
time, this is not disclosed. The specification describes
monitoring a plurality of variables relating to play on the
gaming machines, including the rate at which the interconnected
machines are played, the time that the interconnected machines
Appeal No. 2005-1664
Application 09/878,111
- 7 -
are played, and the status of a player at one of the machines
(spec. at 8, lines 8-24). One aspect of the player status
relates to the level of player play and one aspect of the level
of player play includes the rate of play (spec. at 8,
lines 22-24). "The casino can therefore identify players based
on previous or current rates of play and vary the wager per unit
time for that player accordingly." (Spec. at 3, lines 28-30.)
We interpret "monitoring the level of play of a player on
multiple gaming machines" to mean monitoring the level of play of
a player as the player plays multiple machines in sequence.
Olsen teaches the use of a player tracking card (col. 12,
lines 48-53); this is the only mention of a player tracking card.
Olsen teaches that "the eligible players could be required to
always place maximum bets and should other than a maximum bet be
placed the right to continued participation in the bonus mode
would be lost" (col. 12, lines 36-39); that "[e]ligibility [for
the bonus mode] can be based upon other conventional conditions
at the gaming machine such as the insertion of a player tracking
card, in which case eligibility is lost when the card is removed"
(col. 12, lines 48-52); and that "[e]ligibility could also be
determined by requiring all players bet maximum bets during the
)T time frame (col. 12, lines 53-55). The player tracking card
and maximum bet are conditions for eligibility in addition to
playing within the )T time period. The system must monitor
Appeal No. 2005-1664
Application 09/878,111
- 8 -
whether the machine with a player tracking card has a maximum bet
placed within the )T time frame, which broadly constitutes
"monitoring the level of play of a player" at that particular
machine, where the "level of play" is both the amount of the bet
and the occurrence of a bet within the )T time frame (the speed
of play). Since the player inherently has the capability of
removing the player tracking card from one machine and going to
another machine, the system will monitor the level of play at a
machine when the player has moved to another machine. However,
we agree with appellant that Olsen does not monitor the level of
play of the player on multiple machines. The system in Olsen
monitors the level of play on a particular machine, which
indirectly monitors the level of play of the player at that
machine: there is no teaching of keeping track of the level of
play of the player on multiple machines, i.e., as the player
moves from machine to machine. Therefore, the rejection of
claims 49 and 57, and their dependent claims 54-56 and 58-61,
must be reversed.
Appeal No. 2005-1664
Application 09/878,111
- 9 -
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 49 and 54-61 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2005-1664
Application 09/878,111
- 10 -
MARGER, JOHNSON & McCOLLOM, P.C.
210 SW MORRISON STREET, SUITE 400
PORTLAND, OR 97204