Ex Parte Carpenter et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201612521267 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/521,267 07/01/2009 Jerome Carpenter 65375 7590 03/01/2016 BALLY (DELIZIO LAW) C/O DELIZIO LAW, PLLC 15201 MASON ROAD SUITE 1000-312 CYPRESS, TX 77433 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. 100.009US1 6236 EXAMINER MCCLELLAN, JAMES S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3716 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2016 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): USPTO@DELIZIOLA W.COM USPT02@DELIZIOLA W.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte, JEROME CARPENTER, JAMES E. MOTYL, CRAIG J. SYLLA, and MUTHU VELU 1 Appeal2013-006778 Application 12/521,267 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LISA M. GUIJT, and MARK A. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judges. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-17. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is WMS Gaming, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2013-006778 Application 12/521,267 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates "generally to wagering game systems, and more particularly to capturing and analyzing wireless signals in wagering game environments." Spec. i-f 3. Claim 1 is illustrative and recites: 1. A wagering game machine comprising: a network interface configured to wirelessly exchange, with other devices on a wagering game network, information about wagering games; a wagering game unit configured to present the wagering games based on the information received via the network interface; a wireless signal detection device configured to, disable the network interface; detect, after the network interface is disabled, wireless signals in a wagering game environment and to create wireless signal data for use in determining whether the wireless signals interfere with wireless communications of the wagering game network; and enable, after the detection of the wireless signals in the wagering game environment, the network interface. THE REJECTION ON APPEAL The Examiner rejected claims 1-17 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Amaitis (US 2005/0187020 Al; pub. Aug. 25, 2005) and Sugar (US 2004/0028123 Al; pub. Feb. 12, 2004). ANALYSIS Claims 1---6 Appellants argue that the combination of Amaitis and Sugar would not yield "claim l's wireless signal detection device." Appeal Br. 7. In this regard, Appellants argue that "Sugar does not teach a signal detection device 2 Appeal2013-006778 Application 12/521,267 that 1) disables the network interface, 2) detects wireless signals in the wagering game environment after the network interface is disabled, and 3) enables the network interface after detection of wireless signals." Reply Br. 3. Appellants argue that at best Sugar discloses a signal detector that "provides pulse trigger outputs which may be used to enable/disable the collection of information by the spectrum analyzer." Appeal Br. 7-8 (discussing Sugar Abstract and i-fi-f 13, 4 2). Appellants also assert that Sugar's "universal signal synchronizer" acts only to "adjust data transmission timing, so data transmissions do not overlap with interference." Id. at 8 (discussing Sugari-fi-f 177 and 178). The Examiner relies on Amaitis for disclosing "a wireless signal detection device ... wherein cellular network 22 ... serve[s] as wireless signal detection devices." Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that "Sugar teaches [a] wireless[] signal detection device (e.g., via elements 200 and 700) that is specificaiiy used to disabie/enabie the network interface when it is determined that the wireless signals interfere with wireless communications (e.g., see paragraphs 177 and 178; see also the Abstract)." Final Act. 3. Further, the Examiner finds that "[b ]y enabling/disabling collection of information by the spectral analyzer, it is the Examiner's position that Sugar's signal detector 200 (e.g., see paragraph 42) enables/disables the network interface since wireless data collection is not permitted." Ans. 6-7. The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to "modify Amaitis with enabling/disabling the network interface based on interference detection as taught by Sugar so that potential sources of interference can be quickly disabled, for example, by users committing fraud." Id. at 3. 3 Appeal2013-006778 Application 12/521,267 We agree with Appellants that the Examiner's findings are insufficient to support a conclusion that claim 1 is unpatentable. In particular, we are unable to identify any finding by the Examiner that the combination of Amaitis and Sugar would yield a "wireless signal detection device configured to ... detect, after the network interface is disabled, wireless signals in a wagering game environment and to create wireless signal data for use in determining whether the wireless signals interfere with wireless communications of the wagering game network" as recited in claim 1. Indeed, the Examiner has provided no reasoning or explanation regarding the foregoing claim limitation. See Final Act. 2-6; see also Ans. 5-7. For the foregoing reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. The Examiner does not cure the foregoing deficiency with respect to claims 2---6 which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. As such, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-6. Claims 7-11 Claim 7 is a method claim which recites, in relevant part, "disabling the wireless interface from transmitting wireless signals; after disabling the wireless interface, detecting a group of one or more wireless signals in the wagering game environment." For the same reasons stated above with respect to claim 1, Appellants argue that "neither Amaitis nor Sugar (alone or in combination) teach or suggest claim 7's operations for disabling the wireless interface, detecting wireless signals, and enabling wireless interface." Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner does not provide additional findings with respect to claim 7 or its dependent claims that cure the deficiency we identified with respect to claim 1. See Final Act. 4--5; see 4 Appeal2013-006778 Application 12/521,267 also Ans. 7. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 7-11. Claims 12-17 Claim 12 recites a "wagering game network comprising ... a wireless signal detector device configured to ... detect, after the network interface is disabled, wireless signals in a wagering game environment." Appellants arguments are similar to their arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7, in that they contend that the Examiner's combination does not teach or suggest the claimed "wireless signal detector device." See Appeal Br. 9-10; see also Reply Br. 5. The Examiner does not provide additional findings with respect to claim 12 or its dependent claims that cure the deficiency we identified with respect to claim 1. See Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 7. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 12-17. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation