Ex Parte Erickson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 9, 201613509617 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/509,617 05/14/2012 Eric V. Erickson 65375 7590 08/11/2016 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. 100.131US1 8426 EXAMINER MOSSER, ROBERT E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3714 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/11/2016 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 ERIC V. ERICKSON, TIMOTHY T. GRONKOWSKI, JOEL R. JAFFE, PAUL M. LESLEY, SCOTT A. MASSING, and ALFRED THOMAS Appeal2014-007905 Application 13/509,617 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Eric V. Erickson et al. (Appellants) 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-14, and 19-22. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as WMS Gaming, Inc. Appeal Br. 1. 2 The Examiner's rejection of claims 5, 15-18, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wells, Canterbury, and Obeda (US 6,026,920, iss. Feb. 22, 2000) is withdrawn and is not before us on appeal. Ans. 2. Appeal2014-007905 Application 13/509,617 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 6, 11, and 19 are independent. Claims 1 and 6, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal. 1. A method comprising: rece1vmg, in a wagering game machine, access information identifying a wagering game player; determining a motion profile of the wagering game player, wherein the motion profile is associated with a gaming chair connected to the wagering game machine, wherein the motion profile indicates movements of the gaming chair that are acceptable to the wagering game player; determining prescribed motions for the gaming chair, wherein the prescribed motions are associated with wagering game events; determining that one of the wagering game events occurred on the wagering game machine; moving the gaming chair in accordance with the prescribed motions for the gaming chair and the motion profile of the wagering game player. 6. ii:\. method comprising: presenting wagering game content on a wagering game machine; detecting player-induced motion of a gaming chair connected to the wagering game machine, wherein the detecting includes receiving sensor information from sensors in the gaming chair; analyzing the sensor information to determine a direction of the player-induced motion; changing, based on the direction of the player-induced motion, a viewing perspective of the wagering game content; and moving the gaming chair in another direction in response to the player-induced motion. 2 Appeal2014-007905 Application 13/509,617 EVIDENCE The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Okada Canterbury Wells US 2007 /0060229 Al US 2008/0054561 Al US 2009/0143141 Al REJECTIONS Mar. 15, 2007 Mar. 6, 2008 June 4, 2009 I. Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11-14, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wells and Canterbury. Final Act. 2-9. II. Claims 3, 4, 10, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wells, Canterbury, and Okada. Id. at 9-10. OPINION Rejection I Claims 1, 2, 19, and 20 The Examiner finds that Wells teaches, inter alia, "determining a motion profile of a wagering game player, wherein the motion profile is associated with a gaming chair connected to the wagering game machine." Final Act. 3 (citing Wells i-fi-f 111, 841 ). Wells teaches the ability of the gaming machine to "'recognize' a player when they walk up, and automatically customize aspects of the player's player station system (e.g., based on the player's predefined preferences)." Wells i-f 111. In other words, the Examiner relies on Wells' teaching of "a player profile for adjusting aspects of a gaming machine to a player's preferences." Ans. 4; see also id. at 8. Although Wells teaches a player profile to customize aspects of a game player's player station, it lacks a teaching that the player 3 Appeal2014-007905 Application 13/509,617 profile would indicate movements of the gaming chair that would be acceptable to the game player in particular. The Examiner acknowledges that "Wells does not explicitly teach that the player profile indicates movements of the game chair that are acceptable to the game player." Final Act. 3. For this limitation, the Examiner turns to Canterbury, finding that "Canterbury teaches moving the player chair in accordance with game play and player preferences." Id. (citing Canterbury i1i18, 9, 29, 34, 35, claims 7, 8, 32, 36, 39, 44). Canterbury teaches the ability of the gaming chair associated with a gaming machine to "support[] the desired simulated motion presented during game play or requested by the player (for example, a 'rocking' motion)." Canterbury i129. Canterbury further teaches the ability of the gaming chair "to save the position of the gaming chair 14 on the player tracking card so the next time the player uses any like machines, the gaming chair 14 will automatically adjust itself to the position set by the player." Id. i135. Canterbury additionally teaches a gaming chair with "a motion device for moving the seat according to ... repetitive actions based on player input through an input device" and "a user interface for enabling, disabling, or adjusting the motion device." Id. at claims 7 and 8; see also id. at i134 ("[B]utton panel 39 ... provides input to a number of features including, but not limited to, the chair's simulated motion .... "). The Examiner finds that Canterbury's "teaching [of] elements directed to the movement of the gaming chair responsive to player desires ... would, by plain definition, represent motion that is in tum acceptable to the same player having requested the movement." Ans. 4. The Examiner concludes that: 4 Appeal2014-007905 Application 13/509,617 [i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have incorporated the movements of the game chair that are acceptable to the game player and additional movement types as taught by Canterbury in the invention of Wells in order to allow the player to choose chair motions that are comfortable to the player and therewith prohibit motions that are uncomfortable to a player during a game with simulated events as taught by Canterbury. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner asserts that Wells' teaching of "user profiles for adjusting aspects of a gaming machine to a player's preferences" and Canterbury's "teachings including enabling the player to modify the movements of a gaming chair according to established and stored player preferences" "[ c ]umulatively provid[ e] a player the means to create a gaming environment of choice and increase enjoyment of the game." Ans. 8 (citing Canterbury i-fi-1 9, 3 5). In other words, the Examiner reasons that one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated movements of the gaming chair that are acceptable to the game player into the player profile of Wells in order to allow comfortable movements and prohibit uncomfortable movements, based on the teachings of Canterbury. Final Act. 3--4. Canterbury teaches at least saving the position of the gaming chair so as to automatically adjust to a preferred position when a player uses the gaming chair. Canterbury i135. The Examiner equates this to Canterbury teaching "enabling the player to modify the movements of a gaming chair according to established and stored player preferences." Ans. 8 (citing Canterbury i135). We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the player profile of Wells to indicate movements of the gaming chair that are acceptable to the wagering game player-namely, those movements that automatically place the gaming chair 5 Appeal2014-007905 Application 13/509,617 into the preferred position-to create a gaming environment of choice and increase enjoyment. Appellants argue that Wells and Canterbury fail to teach "determining a motion profile of a wagering game player ... wherein the motion profile indicates movements of the gaming chair that are acceptable to the wagering game player," and thus, also cannot teach "moving the gaming chair in accordance with ... the motion profile of the wagering game player." Appeal Br. 8, 11. More particularly, Appellants argue that Canterbury does not support a finding that its "player preferences" include "movements of the game chair that are acceptable to the game player." Id. at 9. Appellants argue that the "memory seating position" of Canterbury's paragraph 35 "does not teach or suggest claim 1 's 'motion profile [that] indicates movements of the gaming chair that are acceptable to the wagering game player."' Id. at 11. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. As described above, the Examiner has made a finding that a movement of the gaming chair responsive to a player's desire would necessarily be a motion that is acceptable to the player requesting the movement. Ans. 4. Therefore, when a saved, preferred position of a gaming chair as taught by Canterbury is saved to a player's profile as taught by Wells, the player profile is a "motion profile [that] indicates movements of the gaming chair that are acceptable to the wagering game player." This is because the movement of the chair to place it into the saved, preferred position is desired (and thus, acceptable) motion. Appellants further argue that Canterbury's adjustable chair "refers to its physical position-it is adjustable like a car seat." Reply Br. 4. This 6 Appeal2014-007905 Application 13/509,617 statement does not apprise us of error in the Examiner's findings in that Appellants do not explain why the movements of the chair to place it into the desired physical position fails to constitute movements of the gaming chair that are acceptable to the wagering game player. Appellants further argue that the claim uses "the motion profile ... to limit movements associated with game events," and the cited references do not relate player preferences to a motion profile in order to limit chair movements related to game events. Reply Br. 4 (emphasis added). As explained by the Examiner, the claim is not so limited. Rather, the construction of the claimed invention is only fairly limited to moving the gaming chair based on two separate factors: the prescribed game motions and the player's motion profile (preferred player motions). The claim does not define that the movement is resultant of a combination, weighing, or other constructive merging of these two elements. Final Act. 13-14. Because the Examiner has adequately explained how the combination of Wells and Canterbury teaches moving the game chair in accordance with the prescribed motions for the gaming chair and also teaches moving the game chair in accordance with the motion profile of the wagering game player, the Examiner has adequately explained how the prior art renders obvious the claim limitation of "moving the gaming chair in accordance with the prescribed motions for the gaming chair and the motion profile of the wagering game player." Appellants' argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, as written. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (Arguments must be commensurate in scope with the actual claim language). For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Wells and Canterbury renders 7 Appeal2014-007905 Application 13/509,617 obvious the subject matter of independent claim 1, and we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of claims 2, 19, and 20 for which Appellants rely on the same arguments and reasoning we found unpersuasive in connection with claim 1. Appeal Br. 12, 16-17. Claims 6--9 The Examiner finds that the combination of Wells and Canterbury teaches all of the limitations of independent claim 6, including, inter alia, changing a viewing perspective of the wagering game content based on the direction of player-induced motion. Final Act. 5 (citing Canterbury i-fi-134, 42, 43; Wells i-fi-f 1337-1339). The Examiner elaborates that "the player induced motion to change the position of the seat[,] and by extension the player resting on the seat[,] with relation to the display device[,] by definition changes the player's perspective on the display since the player has altered their position relative to the display and hence perspective." Id. at 15 (citing Canterbury i143); see also Ans. 12 ("when the player alters their respective location through the manipulation of the gaming chair[,] they have changed their positional relationship to the gaming machine and hence, altered their viewing perspective of the wagering game and wagering game content."). Appellants argue that Wells and Canterbury fail to teach or suggest "changing, based on the direction of the player-induced motion, a viewing perspective of the wagering game content" as set forth in independent claim 6. Appeal Br. 12. With respect to Canterbury, Appellants argue that paragraph 43 of Canterbury merely describes how components of the gaming chair can be adjusted, but does not teach or suggest changing a viewing perspective. Id. at 13-14. We are not persuaded by Appellants' 8 Appeal2014-007905 Application 13/509,617 argument in that it does not apprise us of error with respect to the Examiner's findings that changing the position of the seat necessarily changes the player's perspective so as to meet the broad language of the claims as currently written. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Wells and Canterbury renders obvious the subject matter of independent claim 6, and we sustain the rejection of independent claim 6. We also sustain the rejection of claims 7- 9, for which Appellants rely on the same arguments and reasoning we found unpersuasive in connection with claim 6. Appeal Br. 14. Claims 11-14 The Examiner finds that the combination of Wells and Canterbury teaches all of the limitations of independent claim 11, including, inter alia, "a chair motion management unit configured to determine motions for the gaming chair based on game events and player input indicating desired motions of the gaming chair" and to "request, in response to wagering game events, movement of the gaming chair, wherein the movement of the gaming chair is in accordance with the player input and with prescribed chair motions associated with the wagering game events." Final Act. 7 (citing Wells i-fi-f 111, 841; Canterbury i-fi-19, 34, 42, 43, claims 7, 8, 32, 36, 39, 44). The Examiner elaborates that "the use of player preferences sets preferences to both game related motions and user defined comfort settings." Id. Appellants argue that Wells and Canterbury fail to teach or suggest a system with a chair motion management system configured to "determine motions for the gaming chair based on game events and player input indicating desired motions of the gaming chair" and "request, in response to 9 Appeal2014-007905 Application 13/509,617 the wagering game events, movement of the gaming chair, wherein the movement of the gaming chair is in accordance with the player input and with prescribed chair motions associated with the wagering game events." Appeal Br. 14--15. More particularly, Appellants argue that "claim 11 describes two conditions for motions of the gaming chair"-that the motion is dictated by the wagering game and is in accordance with player input. Id. at 15. As with claim 1, Appellants argue in essence that the claimed motion profile limits the movements associated with game events, whereas the combination of the prior art does not. In connection with claim 11, we are persuaded by Appellants' arguments because claim 11 requires the chair motion management unit be configured to request movement of the gaming chair in response to the wagering game events, wherein the movement is in accordance with the player input. See Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.). Rather than finding that the movement in response to the wagering game event is in accordance with player input as required by the claims, the Examiner has merely found that Canterbury teaches "modify[ ing] the movements of a gaming chair according to established and stored player preferences" (Ans. 14 (citing Canterbury i-f 35)) and "enacting player motion input (preferences) in combination with existing game triggered motion" (id. (citing Canterbury ,-r,-r 7' 32, 36, 39' 44) ). For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred by concluding that the combination of Wells and Canterbury renders obvious the subject matter of independent claim 11, and we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 11 and claims 12-14, which depend therefrom. 10 Appeal2014-007905 Application 13/509,617 Claims 3 and 4 Rejection II Claims 3 and 4 relate to moving gaming chairs in response to wagering game events at another wagering game machine. Appeal Br. 25- 25 (Claims App.). The Examiner acknowledges that Wells and Canterbury are "silent regarding the explicit use of events occurring at one game machine to cause the moving of the game chair associated with another gaming machine." Final Act. 9-10. The Examiner finds that "Okada teaches that it was known ... to use events occurring at one game machine to cause the moving of the game chair associated with another gaming machine." Id. at 10 (citing Okada i-fi-16, 7, 83). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have incorporated Okada's teachings into the combination of Wells and Canterbury "to make the gaming simulation more immersive through allowing the player to physically experience game events as taught by Okada." Id. (citing Okada i17). In addition to the same reasons we found unpersuasive in connection with independent claim 1, Appellants argue that Okada's movable "carts large enough for a person to sit in [are] wholly unrelated to the gaming chair described" in claims 3 and 4 and that the portions of Okada relied on by the Examiner "don't discuss wagering game machine, gaming chairs, or movement of gaming chairs." Appeal Br. 17, 18, 19. The Examiner responds that Okada is directed to a gaming machine, including gaming chairs and movement of the gaming chairs (Ans. 17-18 (citing Okada, Abstr., i183)), as well as "features directed to the placement and resolution of bets commonly referred to as wagering" (id. at 18 (citing Okada i-fi-1244, 407, 562, 702)). The Examiner asserts that Okada "is analogous art and 11 Appeal2014-007905 Application 13/509,617 reasonably pertinent to the [Appellants'] claimed invention for teaching the aspects directed to the movement of gaming chairs in a wagering gaming environment as should be maintained as such." Id. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Simply that there are differences between two references is insufficient to establish that a prima facie case of obviousness is not possible. See In re Beattie, 97 4 F .2d 1309, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Furthermore, the Appellants have not responded with sufficient particularity to the Examiner's specific findings regarding Okada being directed to gaming machines and movement of gaming chairs so as to persuade us of error in the Examiner's findings. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Wells, Canterbury, and Okada renders obvious the subject matter of claims 3 and 4, and we sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 4. Claims 10, 21, and 22 In connection with these claims, Appellants rely on the same arguments and reasoning we found unpersuasive in connection with claims 6 and 19. Appeal Br. 19. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 10, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wells, Canterbury, and Okada. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 6-10, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. The Examiner's decision to reject claims 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. 12 Appeal2014-007905 Application 13/509,617 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 13 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation