Ex Parte Beatty

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 28, 2014

11183405 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2014)

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.
11/183,405 07/18/2005 John A. Beatty 247079-002052USC1 1881
70243 7590 10/28/2014
NIXON PEABODY LLP
300 S. Riverside Plaza, 16th Floor
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
LIDDLE, JAY TRENT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3716
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2014 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 JOHN A. BEATTY
____________________

Appeal 2012-000766
Application 11/183,405
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
John A. Beatty (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21–38 and 40. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

Appeal 2012-000766
Application 11/183,405

2
Claimed Subject Matter
Independent claim 21, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed
subject matter.
21. A computer-implemented method comprising:
executing, on one or more computers, instructions stored
on one or more computer- readable media to perform operations
comprising:
maintaining a common database, the common database
including a plurality of common objects representing physical
objects in a gaming system, wherein the physical objects
include gaming devices and each gaming device includes at
least one game;
defining associations between ones of the plurality of
common objects and storing the associations in the common
database;
maintaining an application database, the application
database including a plurality of application objects used in a
plurality of gaming applications;
defining a set of common objects participating in a
gaming application and storing associations between the set of
common objects and the gaming application in the application
database;
defining a set of application objects associated with the
gaming application and storing the associations between the set
of application objects and the gaming application in the
application database; and
detecting a change in one or more of the stored
associations between the set of common objects and the gaming
application and associations between the set of application
objects and the gaming application; and
dynamically configuring the gaming application based on
the change to the one or more of the stored associations.

Appeal 2012-000766
Application 11/183,405

3
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Nelson US 6,843,725 B2 Jan. 18, 2005

REJECTIONS
Claims 21–32, 34–38, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Nelson. Ans. 4.
Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nelson and Official Notice. Id. at 10.

OPINION
Appellant argues claims 21, 23, 24, and 28–32 as a group. App. Br.
12–15. We select claim 21 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Claims 23, 24, and 28–32 stand or fall with claim
21.
Maintaining a Common Database
The Examiner finds that Nelson teaches all of the limitations of
claim 21. Ans. 4–5. Regarding the limitation “maintaining a common
database . . . including a plurality of common objects representing physical
objects in a gaming system,” Appellant argues that “the cited portions of
Nelson are silent to a database of any type, but instead generally refers to
locating a gaming machine on the casino floor.” Appeal Br. 13.
The Examiner responds that while Nelson may not use the term
“database,” it discusses receiving and analyzing information related to each
of the gaming machines and where they are located on the casino floor,
Appeal 2012-000766
Application 11/183,405

4
which implies that data is therefore sent to a central server for each gaming
machine, stored, and processed “to create essentially an address book for
each gaming machine.” Ans. 11. The Examiner reasons that because
Nelson’s central server is able to receive, store, and process data for each
gaming machine, Nelson teaches a database storing information regarding
the gaming machines.
Appellant replies that “even assuming arguendo that Nelson does
disclose a database . . . there is still no disclosure of a database that is a
common database, or one that is maintained” as recited in claims 21 and 28.
Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner has the better argument. A common database includes
information about common objects such as gaming machines. Spec. 2.
Nelson stores information about its gaming machines for use in tracking
their location within the casino. As the gaming machines move within the
casino, the database is “maintained” by updating gaming machine
information, such as its location within the casino. Appellant has not
persuaded us to the contrary.
Defining Associations between Common Objects
Appellant also argues that Nelson fails to teach “defining associations
between ones of the plurality of common objects and storing the associations
in the common database” because Nelson fails to disclose a common
database. Appeal Br. 13. As stated above, we agree with the Examiner that
Nelson teaches a common database. Appellant then argues that Nelson’s
creation of a casino layout based on gaming machine locations does not
teach “defining associations between ones of the plurality of common
objects and storing the associations in the common database.” Id.
Appeal 2012-000766
Application 11/183,405

5
The Examiner responds that Nelson teaches gaming machines being
associated with each other in a subset based on their particular area of the
casino, and that each machine in the particular area is therefore associated
with the other machines in that particular area, to create “associations
between the various machines of the casino depending upon where each
machine resides on the casino floor.” Ans. 12
Appellant replies that this limitation in claim 21 further recites
“storing associations between the set of common objects and the gaming
application in the application database,” which differs from Nelson’s
association of gaming machines “depending upon where each machine
resides on the casino floor.” Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner has the better argument. Nelson defines “a set of
common objects participating in a gaming application” by grouping gaming
machines by a common location into a subset defined by a distance, and this
grouping and resulting association of group members is stored enabling
Nelson’s system to control the subset of gaming devices to, for example,
perform a software download based on location. See Nelson, col. 7, ll. 17–
19. Appellant fails to explain why Nelson’s grouping of gaming machines
into subsets based on location, and its ability to control the subset of
machines as a group, does not teach storing associations among the subset of
gaming machines and the gaming application in an application database.
Maintaining the Application Database
Appellant then argues that Nelson fails to teach “maintaining an
application database, the application database including a plurality of
application objects used in a plurality of gaming applications.” Appeal
Br. 13. Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s finding that “if software is
Appeal 2012-000766
Application 11/183,405

6
downloaded it must be stored” (Final Rej. 3), and states in a conclusory
manner that even if this were true, the cited portions of Nelson still fail to
teach “a plurality of application objects used in a plurality of gaming
applications.” Appeal Br. 14.
We agree with the Examiner that, if software is downloaded it must be
stored first. Regarding storage of plural application objects, column 7, lines
10–26 of Nelson discuss an initial setup and configuration of a gaming
machine, and subsequent changes made to the gaming machine software
based, for example, on machine location, which teaches the existence and
storage of more than one application object.
Stored Associations
Appellant argues that the Examiner fails to identify what aspect(s) of
Nelson provide the three types of stored associations recited in claim 21: (1)
associations between common objects stored in a common database; (2)
associations between the set of common objects and the gaming application
stored in the application database; and (3) associations between the set of
application objects and the gaming application stored in the application
database. Appeal Br. 14–15; Reply Br. 4.
To the contrary, the Examiner addresses storing associations between
common objects in a common database on page 5 of the Answer, finding
that Nelson teaches this subject matter in column 4. The stored associations
among common objects (i.e., gaming machines) is taught by Nelson’s
disclosure that gaming machines proximate a winning gaming machine are
determined and controlled in a given manner (Nelson, col. 4, ll. 9–25) and its
disclosure that a subset of gaming machines are identified by a distance
parameter and associated with each other (Nelson, col. 2, l. 52 to col. 3, l. 8).
Appeal 2012-000766
Application 11/183,405

7
The associations among gaming machines must be stored by the gaming
system to act based thereon.
The Examiner addresses storing associations between common
objects and the gaming application in an application database on page 5 of
the Answer, finding that Nelson teaches this subject matter on lines 23–63 of
column 13. The stored association between each common object (i.e.,
gaming machine) and the gaming application can include associating gaming
machines together within the gaming application so that players, e.g, at
adjacent gaming machines, can “participate against each other for a common
payout. See Nelson, col. 13, ll. 23-31. Further, storage of the location of the
gaming machine subset within the casino teaches storing associations
between common objects (the gaming machine subset) and the gaming
application.
The Examiner addresses storing associations between application
objects and the gaming application on page 5 of the Answer, finding that
Nelson teaches this subject matter on lines 10–26 of column 7, and finding
that if software (i.e., a gaming application) is downloaded, it must be stored
first and there must additionally be associations of what software (gaming
application) will be downloaded to where (i.e., in the gaming application),
which associations are also stored.
Detecting a Change in Stored Associations
Appellant next argues that Nelson fails to teach “detecting a change in
one or more of the stored associations related to the gaming application; and
dynamically configuring the gaming application based on the change to the
one or more of the stored associations” because, although Nelson detects a
change in a location of a gaming machine, claim 21 recites detecting a
Appeal 2012-000766
Application 11/183,405

8
change in a stored association, not detecting a location change. Appeal
Br. 14.
As discussed above, we are not persuaded that a detected location of a
gaming machine fails to create an association of the gaming machine with
the gaming application, and that the association is stored. Therefore,
detecting a change in the gaming machine’s location within the casino is
detecting a change in a stored association. Appellant fails to explain why
this finding is erroneous, and we are therefore not persuaded by this
argument.
For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the rejection of claim 21 as
anticipated by Nelson. Claims 23, 24, and 28–32 fall with claim 21.
Claim 22
Regarding dependent claim 22, Appellant argues that Nelson fails to
teach “defining common objects selected from the group consisting of site
controllers and carousel controllers.” Appeal Br. 15. The Examiner finds
that Nelson teaches this subject matter in lines 13–33 of column 5 (Ans. 6),
and states that “a site controller [can] merely be the processor of a gaming
machine (each gaming machine has a controller), and thus having a gaming
machine reads on the claims as presented” (Ans. 14). Neither the Examiner
nor Appellant defines “site controller.” During patent examination, the
pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification.” MPEP § 2111 (citing Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). The Examiner’s construction
of the term “site controller” to include the processor of a gaming machine is
unreasonably broad, reading the modifying word “site” from the term and
Appeal 2012-000766
Application 11/183,405

9
giving no consideration to Appellant’s use of the term in the Specification,
which states:
The site controller 30 includes a processor that acts as a
data collector and message requester for a remote site 12, such
as a casino, and communicates that information back to the
central system at the central site 10. Typically, all of the
carousel controllers 32 at one remote site 12 will report to a
single site controller 30, which will then report the remote site's
data across a wide area connection (e.g., phone line) to the
central system. Data processing functions of the site controller
30 include carousel controller configuration assignment and
validation. In an alternative embodiment, the site controller 30
is linked directly to the gaming devices 34 at the same remote
site 12 without any carousel controllers 32 serving as
intermediaries.
Spec. 5.
Because any construction of the term “site controller” that allows it to
read on “merely . . . the processor of a gaming machine” is unreasonably
broad, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 22.
Claims 25 and 26
Regarding dependent claim 25, Appellant argues that Nelson fails to
teach “generating application profiles used by one or more of the plurality of
common objects.” Appeal Br. 15. The Examiner finds that Nelson teaches
this limitation at lines 13–63 of column 5 and lines 1–26 of column 7
(Ans. 6), responding that Nelson delivers software to gaming machines
“based upon their location, thus the server must maintain information that
relates to what software is delivered where, such information would be
considered to be a profile” (Id. at 14).1

1 “Using the gaming machine location data the initial set-up or configuration
of a gaming machine may be controlled. Likewise, subsequent changes
Appeal 2012-000766
Application 11/183,405

10
Appellant disagrees, arguing that “[t]he cited portions of Nelson relate
to generating commands dependent on the location of a gaming machine and
do not disclose ‘generating application profiles,’” offering “no evidence that
profiles are generated, but only a series of commands, or at most sending
software based on location.” Reply Br. 4–5. Appellant fails to explain,
however, why the Examiner erred in finding that, based on the disclosure of
Nelson, its server necessarily generates application profiles used by common
objects. We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 25 as anticipated by
Nelson. Appellant argues claims 25 and 26 as a group (Appeal Br. 15), and
therefore we also sustain the rejection of claim 26.
Claim 27
Regarding dependent claim 27, Appellant argues that Nelson fails to
teach “defining the plurality of common objects as shareable by more than
one of the plurality of applications.” Appeal Br. 16. The Examiner finds
that Nelson teaches this limitation at lines 50–58 of column 9 (Ans. 6),
responding that in Nelson’s Figure 2, two gaming machines are determined
to be in the “lounge area,” and a “game selection would be downloaded for
that area, each gaming machine having the same game(s)” so that the
gaming machines “share the same applications” (Ans. 14). Appellant does
not persuade us that this finding is in error, and we sustain the rejection of
claim 27 as anticipated by Nelson.

may be made to the software or changeable settings of the gaming machine
via a network based on the location of the gaming machine.” Nelson, col. 7,
ll. 10-14.
Appeal 2012-000766
Application 11/183,405

11
Claim 34
Regarding dependent claim 34, Appellant argues that Nelson fails to
teach “defining ones of the set of gaming devices participating in the
centralized gaming application as also participating in another centralized
gaming application.” Appeal Br. 16. The Examiner finds that Nelson
teaches this limitation at lines 44–67 of column 9, from line 51 of column 11
to line 3 of column 12, and at lines 23–63 of column 13 (Ans. 8), responding
that Nelson teaches “games offered for play,” and that because each game is
downloaded from a server, it can be considered a “centralized game” (id. at
15, emphasis added). Appellant does not explain why this finding is in
error, and we therefore sustain the rejection of claim 34 as anticipated by
Nelson.
Claim 35
Regarding dependent claim 35, Appellant argues that Nelson fails to
teach:
[d]efining a first set of wagering game devices
participating in a first centralized gaming application; defining
a second set of wagering game devices participating in a second
centralized gaming application, wherein at least one wagering
game device is simultaneously a member of the first set and a
member of the second set.

Appeal Br. 16.2
The Examiner finds that Nelson teaches this limitation in Figure 2, at
lines 10–26 of column 7, from line 36 of column 11 to line 3 of column 12,

2 Appellant additionally argues that Nelson fails to teach maintaining a
common database including a plurality of common objects, referring back to
the arguments set forth regarding claim 21. The arguments are addressed
above with respect to claim 21 and we do not repeat our analysis here.
Appeal 2012-000766
Application 11/183,405

12
and at lines 23–63 of column 13. Ans. 8–9. The Examiner reasons that
Nelson’s gaming machines in a given area “have a centralized game that
they are participating in,” and that additionally “a user may then choose to
play a game with a person that is not located next to them in a particular
interactive game (col. 13, lines 42-46),” so that “a first person located in a
first bank of machines is associated with a particular game,” a second user
“located in another area is associated with a particular game,” and the first
user can invite the second user “to play a game, making their own grouping,
thus both the first player and the second player are members of their
respective banked groups as well as members of the game they are playing
against each other.” Ans. 15.
Appellant argues in reply that “‘participating’ requires more than
simply having the same type of game application downloaded,” and that
Nelson therefore “does not disclose a gaming machine participating in two
centralized gaming applications simultaneously, but only two users playing
in one game.” Reply Br. 5. Appellant, however, fails to explain why
“participating in” a gaming application requires more than gaming machines
having the same software loaded thereon. We therefore are not persuaded
by Appellant’s argument and we sustain the rejection of claim 35 as
anticipated by Nelson. Appellant argues claims 35–38 and 40 as a group
(Appeal Br. 17), and therefore we also sustain the rejection of claims 36–38
and 40.
Claim 33
Appellant presents no argument that dependent claim 33 would be
patentable over Nelson if independent claim 28 is anticipated by Nelson.
Appeal 2012-000766
Application 11/183,405

13
We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 33 as unpatentable over Nelson
and Official Notice.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 21, 23–32, 34–38, and 40 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Nelson.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Nelson.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nelson and Official Notice.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ssc