Ex Parte Aoki

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2017

13430993 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2017)

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.
13/430,993 03/27/2012 Dion K. Aoki 247079-000670USPT 9123
70243 7590
NIXON PEABODY LLP
70 West Madison, Suite 3500
CHICAGO, IL 60602
03/09/2017 EXAMINER
LEE, WEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2017 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):
docketingchicago @ nixonpeabody.com
ipairlink @ nixonpeabody. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DION K. AOKI
Appeal 2014-006886
Application 13/430,9931
Technology Center 3700
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of
claims 1—25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
According to Appellant, “[t]he present disclosure relates generally to
wagering games, as well as systems and devices for playing wagering
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is WMS Gaming Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2014-006886
Application 13/430,993
games. More particularly, the present disclosure relates to systems,
methods, and devices for playing progressive wagering games.” Spec. 13.
CLAIMS
Claims 1—25 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed
claims and recites:
1. A gaming system for conducting a wagering game, the
wagering game including a base game and one or more
progressive jackpots, the gaming system comprising:
at least one processor;
an input device configured to receive a wager to play the
wagering game;
a display configured to display outcomes of the wagering
game; and
at least one memory device storing a plurality of
instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor,
cause the at least one processor to operate with the display to:
determine whether at least one of the one or more
progressive jackpots is active, the one or more progressive
jackpots each being switchable between active and
inactive states and each having a respective progressive
value and a respective trigger value;
determine an outcome of the base game, the base
game including a plurality of symbol-bearing reels, the
base-game outcome being randomly determined from a
plurality of base-game outcomes, the base-game outcome
including symbols of the symbol-bearing reels arranged on
the display;
determine if the symbols of the symbol-bearing
reels arranged on the display in the base-game outcome
have a base-game award associated therewith;
responsive to the at least one of the one or more
progressive jackpots being active and the base-game
outcome having a base-game award associated therewith,
2
Appeal 2014-006886
Application 13/430,993
award the base-game award to the player and increment
the respective progressive value of the active at least one
progressive jackpot by an increment amount equal to at
least the base-game award; and
responsive to the incremented respective
progressive value of the active at least one progressive
jackpot being equal to or greater than the respective trigger
value, award the incremented respective progressive value
to the player.
Appeal Br., App. Al.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1,3, 12, 15, 17, and 22—25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baerlocherl2 in view of
Baerlocher2.3
2. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Baerlocherl in view of Baerlocher2
and Beatty.4
3. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 5, 13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Baerlocherl in view of Baerlocher2
and Baerlocher3.5
4. The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Baerlocherl in view of Baerlocher2 and
Bigelow.6
2 Baerlocher et al., US 2011/0111826 Al, pub. May 12, 2011.
3 Baerlocher et al., US 2007/0060314 Al, pub. Mar. 15, 2007.
4 Beatty, US 2006/0019750 Al, pub. Jan. 26, 2006.
5 Baerlocher et al., US 2008/0076514 Al, pub. Mar. 27, 2008.
6 Bigelow, Jr. et al., US 2003/0162585 Al, pub. Aug. 28, 2003
3
Appeal 2014-006886
Application 13/430,993
5. The Examiner rejects claims 7—9, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Baerlocherl in view of Baerlocher2
and Englman.7
6. The Examiner rejects claims 10, 11, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Baerlocherl in view of Baerlocher2
and Luciano.8
DISCUSSION
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Baerlocherl discloses
a gaming system including a wagering game with a base game and one or
more progressive jackpots; a processor; an input device; a display; and a
memory with instructions, as claimed except for the requirements that the
one or more progressive jackpots are switchable between active and inactive
states; that the jackpots have respective trigger values; and that progressive
values are awarded responsive to the incremented respective progressive
value of the active at least one progressive jackpot being equal to or greater
than the respective trigger value. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Baerlocherl
Figs. IB, 2A, 4A; abstract; || 4, 12, 41, 94). With respect to the limitations
not found in Baerlocherl, the Examiner relies on Baerlocher2. Id. at 4
(citing Baerlocher2 || 30, 119, 205). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to modify Baerlocherl “in view of Baelrocher2 to include
the aforementioned method in order to improve [the] casino’s control
capability of the progressive jackpot fimction/event and maximize casino
profit margin.” Id. at 4—5.
7 Englman et al., US 2005/0003886 Al, pub. Jan. 6, 2005.
8 Luciano, Jr., US 7,997,580 B2, iss. Aug. 16, 2011.
4
Appeal 2014-006886
Application 13/430,993
We find persuasive Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s
reasoning is inadequate to arrive at the claimed system. See Appeal Br. 20.
An obviousness rejection must be based on some articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness
and cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements. See KSR Int’l. Co.
v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). With respect to the rejection
before us, we first note that the Final Action simply cites portions of
Baerlocher2 without explanation, and the Examiner’s conclusion does not
address why Baerlocher2’s disclosure teaches a method that would combine
with Baerlocherl to improve the casino’s control such that profits would be
maximized. Final Act. 4—5. Further, in response to Appellant’s argument,
the Examiner states:
Baerlocher2 teaches the method of activating and
deactivating progressive jackpots “Is based on a player tracking
system (implemented through a player tracking card or other
suitable manner)” (|| 119 and 205)”, which means that as
described by Baerlocher2, the method has the effect of offering
a personalized progressive award, which means that the method
is beneficial because it can offer a personalized progressive
award (by allowing a casino to offer a personalized progressive
award, it improves casino’s control capability of the
progressive jackpot function; by allowing a casino to offer a
personalized progressive award, it also allow[s] the casino to
maximize its profit margin).
Ans. 13. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not adequately
explained the connection between Baerlocher2’s use of a player tracking
system and the proposed modifications to Baerlocherl’s dynamic award
game. Reply Br. 7. Similarly, we find that the Examiner’s statements that
the casino’s control would be improved and profits would be maximized are
conclusory and are not adequately supported on the record before us.
5
Appeal 2014-006886
Application 13/430,993
Specifically, the Examiner provides no logical explanation as to why or how
it would have been obvious to modify Baerlocherl ’s system to achieve the
results the Examiner relies upon, i.e. how a player tracking system leads to
offering a personalized progressive award that leads to greater casino control
and higher profit margins. Thus, the Examiner’s conclusion is not
adequately supported by articulated reasoning with the requisite rational
underpinning on the record before us. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1.
The Examiner relies on the same reasoning in rejecting each of the
remaining independent claims on appeal, i.e., claims 14, 15, 22, and 23.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of any of the independent
claims, and we also do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2—13,
16—21, 24, and 25 for the same reasons.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we REVERSE the rejections of
claims 1—25.
REVERSED
6