Ex Parte Antonopoulos

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

13275519 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/275,519 10/18/2011
26875 7590 09/28/2016
WOOD, HERRON & EV ANS, LLP
2700 CAREW TOWER
441 VINE STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Constantinos Antonopoulos
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
INTG-03H 8185
EXAMINER
LIDDLE, JAY TRENT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
usptodock@whe-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CONSTANTINOS ANTONOPOULOS
Appeal2014-009833
Application 13/275,519
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Constantinos Antonopoulos (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-12,
and 14--21. 1 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claims 3, 4, 8, and 13 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 1 (filed June 9,
2014).
Appeal2014-009833
Application 13/275,519
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a hangman type of lottery game. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for conducting a lottery game, comprising the
steps of:
receiving an input from a player of a selected word,
comprising a plurality of letters;
receiving play information from the player;
defining a pool of letters with a processor, the pool of
letters comprising an alphabet from which a winning group of
letters is drawn, wherein each letter of the alphabet has an equal
probability of being drawn with the winning group and can be
drawn only once;
drawing the winning group from the pool of letters with
the processor, wherein the winning group includes at least as
many letters as the selected word;
comparing the selected word with the winning group with
the processor;
defining a winning mode with the processor, wherein a
predetermined amount of letters in the winning group coincide
with the letters comprising the selected word; and
indicating to the player whether the selected word satisfies
the winning mode.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Casa
Bozeman
us 5,613,679
US 7,497,778 B2
THE REJECTION
Mar. 25, 1997
Mar. 3, 2009
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-12, and 14--21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bozeman and Casa.
2
Appeal2014-009833
Application 13/275,519
OPfNION
Each of independent claims 1, 10, 11, 16, and 18 recites, inter alia,
"wherein each symbol from the pool has an equal probability of being
drawn with the winning group and can be drawn only once." Appeal Br. 36
and 39--42 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that Bozeman discloses a method for conducting
a lottery game having most of the limitations of the independent claims
including selecting a word having a plurality of letters from an alphabet that
is compared to a drawn winning group of letters to determine whether the
selected word satisfies the winning mode. Final Act. 3-7 (citing Bozeman,
col. 3, 11. 55-59; col. 4, 11. 11-27; col. 4, 1. 56-col. 5, 1. 27; and col. 11, 1. 50-
col. 12, 1. 25). However, the Examiner also finds that "Bozeman does not
explicitly disclose that each letter of the alphabet has an
equal probability of being drawn." Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies on
Casa to teach a drawing with letters, wherein each letter has a same
probability of being drawn. Id. at 4--8 (citing Casa, col. 5, 11. 49-67). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious "to combine the
teachings of Casa with the disclosure of Bozeman such that players would
not have to understand various probabilities when they were choosing a
word to submit, thus making the game easier for players to understand and
play." Id. at 8.
Appellant argues that "[a] person skilled in the art would not be
motivated to modify Bozeman with the alleged same probability teachings
of Casa" because "each and every embodiment of Bozeman teaches that the
letters are present in the pool in a weighted or non-equal distribution."
Appeal Br. 16. Appellant asserts that "one of ordinary skill in the art would
3
Appeal2014-009833
Application 13/275,519
not consider destroying this letter distribution feature of the Bozeman
invention by replacing it with the same probability feature of Casa." Id. at
18. Thus, according to Appellant, the Examiner's modification of"Bozeman
with the same probability teaching of Casa results in a 'regular lottery',"
which "is the type of traditional combination/permutation game beyond
which Bozeman seeks to expand, as discussed in the Background section of
Bozeman." Id. at 17.
The Examiner responds that "Bozeman's invention relates to creating
lotteries that are related to word games, [and] had the core of Bozeman's
invention been related to probabilities, he would have mentioned it there
either as the main purpose or at least in combination with the
word games." Ans. 5.
In reply, Appellant asserts that "Bozeman is motivated to develop and
provide a more challenging and interesting lottery game," and accomplishes
this "by utilizing the letter distributions based on the relative frequencies of
use in the English language or in the game Scrabble®." Reply Br. 6.
Appellant thus argues that, "the alleged justification found in the rejections
to modify Bozeman according to Casa is to make the 'game easier for
players to understand and play' .... [which] is diametrically contrary to the
stated objective in Bozeman." Id.
Appellant's arguments are persuasive. Bozeman states that, "[i]t is
also required that the process be such that each possible outcome can be
assigned a probability of occurrence." Bozeman, col. 4, 11. 14--16 (emphasis
added). Bozeman then describes these probabilities in the discussion of
Figure 4, explaining a probability distribution of letters roughly matches
what is found in the English language, where "the letter 'E' occurs more
4
Appeal2014-009833
Application 13/275,519
frequently than the letter 'F." Id. at col. 4, 11. 17-34; see also Fig. 4
(depicting, e.g., five instances of the letter "E" and one instance of the letter
"F"). In view of Bozeman's discussion of Figure 4, we understand
Bozeman's statement that it is "required" that each possible outcome be
assigned a probability of occurrence, to require that the probabilities of
drawing different letters be different. Accordingly, Bozeman does not
envision a scenario where "each letter has a same probability of being
drawn" and thus, it is not apparent why a person of ordinary skill in the art
would modify Bozeman in this manner. Indeed, as Appellant asserts (see
Appeal Br. 17-18), Bozeman intends to expand beyond traditional lottery
games, and the above-noted difference in probabilities in drawing letters is
connected to this objective. In view of this, modifying Bozeman based on
the teachings of Casa so "that players would not have to understand various
probabilities when they were choosing a word to submit, thus making the
game easier for players to understand and play" (Final Act. 8), would be
contrary to Bozeman's intended purpose and thus, the Examiner's reasoning
lacks rational underpinnings. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-1, and 14--21 as unpatentable over Bozeman
and Casa. 2
2 Should there be further prosecution of this application (including any
review for allowance), the Examiner may wish to review the claims for
compliance under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the most recent USPTO
guidance on patent eligible subject matter.
5
Appeal2014-009833
Application 13/275,519
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-12, and 14--21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
6