Ex Parte Blackburn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2013

10802700 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER W. BLACKBURN,
RORY L. BLOCK, THOMAS A. GENTLES,
VIKRAM SWAMY, and TERRY D. WARKENTIN
____________________

Appeal 2011-005911
Application 10/802,700
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-005911
Application 10/802,700

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-7 and 11-21. Claims 8-10 and 22-25 were cancelled during prosecution.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). This appeal is related to
appeals 2011-006573, 2011-010059, 2010-005896, 2010-002773, 2010-
002775, and 2010-003577.
We affirm.

The claims are directed to name service in a service-oriented gaming
network environment. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for providing a name service in a gaming
network including gaming machines, the method comprising:

instantiating a name service on the gaming network;

sending service information for the name service from
the name service to a discovery agent on the gaming network,
wherein the name service provides identification services using
common names for devices on the gaming network to a
plurality of gaming clients communicably coupled to the
gaming network, the gaming clients including one or more
gaming machines, wherein in response to a wager at a gaming
machine of the plurality of gaming machines the gaming
machine depicts indicia representative of a randomly selected
outcome of a wagering game;

determining by the discovery agent if the name service is
authentic and authorized;

in response to determining that the name service is
authentic and authorized, publishing service information to a
Appeal 2011-005911
Application 10/802,700

3
service repository to make the name service available on the
gaming network;

receiving by the discovery agent a request for the
location of the name service from a gaming client;

returning the service information for the name service to
the gaming client;

sending one or more service requests using the service
information from the gaming client to the name service; and

processing the one or more service requests between the
gaming client and the name service, said service requests
conforming to an internetworking protocol.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Cordero
Gatto
US 2001/0044339 A1
US 6,916,247 B2
Nov. 22, 2001
July 12, 2005

REJECTION
Claims 1-7 and 11-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cordero and Gatto.

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend:
Significantly absent from the text of paragraph [0045] is any
disclosure or any mention of a discovery service. In fact, there
is no use of the term "discovery service" or "discover"
anywhere in Cordero. In the event that the Office Action is
equating the ideal service finder with a discovery service,
Appeal 2011-005911
Application 10/802,700

4
Appellant[s] note[] that Cordero does not disclose how the ideal
service finder obtains information about services. Thus
Cordero cannot disclose "sending service information for the
name service from the name service to a discovery agent on the
gaming network" as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in
claim 15.

(App. Br. 15). Appellants further contend the Examiner's reliance upon
column 2 of the Gatto reference is in error where:
the cited portion is referring to authentication of
communications between devices and a server. Notably absent
from the cited portion is any mention of authorization of any
kind. Further, the cited portion states that communications are
authenticated, not services. In order to authenticate
communications, the service has to be resident on the network.
Appellant's claimed subject matter has the advantage that it
determines whether or not a service is authorized and authentic
before the service's details are ever published and made
available on the network. In other words, the claims recite
authentication and authorization of the service itself, not
communications.
(App. Br. 16). Additionally, Appellants contend that "there is no disclosure
in Gatto that a discovery agent performs authentication and authorization of
a name service prior to publishing the name service for a gaming network."
(Id.)
The Examiner responds to Appellants' arguments in the responsive
arguments and further details the grounds of rejection. We find the
Examiner's responsive arguments (Ans. 6-8) fully responsive to the
Appellants' contentions, and we adopt the Examiner's underlying factual
findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness as our own. We note
that Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief to address the Examiner's
responsive arguments which were not set forth in the prior statement of the
Appeal 2011-005911
Application 10/802,700

5
rejection, mailed September 15, 2009. Furthermore, Appellants have not
identified any specific definition from the Specification to differentiate the
"authentic and authorized" limitation from the teachings and suggestions of
both the Gatto and Cordero references. Therefore, Appellants' arguments do
not show error in the Examiner's showing of obviousness of independent
claim 1.
With respect to independent claim 15, Appellants rely upon the
arguments advanced with respect to representative claim 1. (App. Br. 16).
Therefore, we group independent claim 15 as falling with representative
claim 1. With respect to dependent claims 2-7, 11-14, and 16-21, Appellants
rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 1.
Therefore, we group these claims as falling with representative claim 1.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-7 and 11-21 under 35
U.S.C. §103 based upon obviousness.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7 and
11-21 is sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2009).

AFFIRMED

llw