Ex Parte Berman et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 26, 201613295829 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/295,829 11/14/2011 111805 7590 King Show Games, INC. 10275 Wayzata Blvd. Suite 300 Minnetonka, MN 55305 05/31/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Bradley Berman 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. KSG.087.PATl 9982 EXAMINER HU, KANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3717 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2016 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): ip@ksg.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRADLEY BERMAN and CHAD SHAPIRO Appeal2014-001813 Application 13/295,829 1 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-13 and 21-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants' claimed invention is "generally directed to games, and more particularly to systems, apparatuses and methods for providing game features, such as slot game features." (Spec. i-f 1.) 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is King Show Games, Inc. (Appeal Br. 2.) Appeal2014-001813 Application 13/295,829 Claims 1 and 21 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below: 1. A method comprising: spinning adjacent reels of a slot game; stopping a first subset of the adjacent reels while a second subset of the adjacent reels remains spinning; determining if the first subset of the adjacent reels satisfies a minimum win combination criteria; activating, using a processor, an enhanced feature while the second subset of the adjacent reels continue to spin, the enhanced feature configured to enhance play on the adjacent reels; stopping the second subset of adjacent reels; and providing results based on at least the result of the adjacent reels and the activated enhanced feature. REJECTIONS Claims 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that Appellants regard as the invention.2 Claims 1---6 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by DeMar (US 2007/0060295 Al, pub. Mar. 15, 2007). Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeMar and Gomez (US 2006/0068892 Al, pub. Mar. 30, 2006). 2 The rejection of claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has been withdrawn. (Answer 3.) 2 Appeal2014-001813 Application 13/295,829 ANALYSIS The § 112, Second Paragraph, Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that applicants regard as the invention. (Final Action 3.) Appellants do not argue in the Appeal Brief in response to this rejection. Therefore, we summarily affirm this rejection. The§ 102 Rejection Claims l, 2, and 4-6 The Examiner finds that DeMar anticipates claim 1. (See Final Action 4--5.) DeMar discloses a video reel slot machine. (DeMar i-fl9.) In one example, DeMar describes a 5-reel machine in which "[i]f any stopped reels show three dollar sign symbols with one or more reels still in motion, ... gaming machine 200 suspends the game such that no more reels are stopped." (Id. i136.) DeMar further discloses that with three reels stopped and showing three dollar sign symbols and with the two reels in motion, the "'Press to go for four dollar signs' button 224" appears onscreen, and the reels still in motion "continue to spin until the player presses the onscreen button 224." (Id. i137.) Appellants argue that "while DeMar may teach a pause or change of pace that may increase a player's anticipation, DeMar does not expressly or inherently teach providing results based on the result of the adjacent reels and the activated enhanced feature," as required by claim 1. (Appeal Br. 9.) The Examiner answers that DeMar's "onscreen button 224 presenting the 'press to go for$$$$' [is] the enhanced feature." (Answer 5, citing 3 Appeal2014-001813 Application 13/295,829 DeMar if 37.) Additionally, the "Examiner is interpreting the results as the determination upon all of the reels being spun." (Id.) Appellants respond that "there is ... no teaching in DeMar that the provided results are based in any way on the activated enhanced feature." (Reply Br. 6.) We disagree. In the above-described example from DeMar, once the game is suspended, the player must press the onscreen button 224 to finish the game, i.e., to stop the two reels still in motion. (DeMar if 37.) Thus, the game's results are provided based on activating the enhanced feature, i.e., pressing the onscreen button 224 to stop the reels still in motion, and on the symbols showing on the stopped reels. (See Answer 5.) In view of the above, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that DeMar anticipates claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under§ 102(b ). For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 4---6, which are separately argued, but based only on their dependency on claim 1. (Appeal Br. 8.) Claim 3 Appellants separately argue claim 3. (Appeal Br. 9-10.) Claim 3 recites: "The method of Claim 1, further comprising duplicating the minimum win combination criteria into one or more additional slot games." In finding claim 3 anticipated by DeMar, the Examiner "constru[ es] the additional slot game as the spinning of the remaining reels." (Final Action 5.) 4 Appeal2014-001813 Application 13/295,829 Appellants argue that the remaining reels referred to are all part of the same slot game. That is, an outcome for the current slot game cannot even be determined without the presence of the additional reels. Thus, it is not reasonable to consider the remaining reels of one slot game to somehow be entirely different additional slot games. (Appeal Br. 10.) We agree with Appellants. DeMar discloses that onscreen button 224 allows the player "to finish the game." (De Mar i-f 3 7, emphasis added.) Because the outcome is not determined until all reels are stopped, we determine that the Examiner's finding that DeMar discloses "one or more additional slot games" is inadequately supported. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 3 under § 102(b ). Claims 21-27 Appellants do not argue in the Appeal Brief in response to the rejection of claims 21-27. Therefore, we summarily affirm the rejection of claims 21-27 under§ 102(b). The§ 103 Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 7-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeMar and Gomez. (Final Action 9-10.) Appellants argue claims 7-13 separately, but only to the extent that Gomez fails to cure the alleged deficiency in the anticipation rejection of claim 1 based on DeMar. (See Appeal Br. 8.) Therefore, for the reasons discussed above with regard to claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claims 7-13 under§ 103(a). 5 Appeal2014-001813 Application 13/295,829 DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is summarily affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4---6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 21-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is summarily affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 7-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation