Ex Parte Gagner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2018

12742005 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/742,005 05/07/2010 Mark B. Gagner
70243 7590 08/23/2018
NIXON PEABODY LLP
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.
247079-000568USPX 1311
EXAMINER
70 West Madison, Suite 3500 LEE, WEI
CHICAGO, IL 60602
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2018 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):
docketingchicago@nixonpeabody.com
ipairlink@nixonpeabody.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK B. GAGNER, JACOB C. GREENBERG,
MARK JOHNSON, ANDREW LANDSMAN,
ELEOBARDO MORENO, and LARRY J. PACEY
Appeal2017-011023 1
Application 12/742,005 2
Technology Center 3700
Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of
claims 1, 3, 7, 10-12, 38, 39, 46, and 67-108. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," Feb. 17, 2017),
the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Aug. 22, 2017), the Examiner's Answer
("Ans.," mailed June 22, 2017) and the Final Office Action ("Final Act.,"
mailed Aug. 19, 2016).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Bally Gaming, Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-011023
Application 12/742,005
BACKGROUND
"The present invention relates generally to gaming machines, and
methods for playing wagering games, and more particularly, to a gaming
system involving physical interaction by a player with three-dimensional
(3D) space." Spec. ,r 2.
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 67, 83, and 96 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A computer-implemented method of detecting and
interpreting player interactions with a wagering game, the
method, comprising:
receiving, via at least one input device, an input
indicative of a wager to play the wagering game on a gaming
device;
displaying, via at least one of one or more display
devices, a three-dimensional (3D) game environment that
relates to the wagering game, the displayed 3D game
environment including a plurality of selectable 3D elements;
detecting, via one or more hands-only-aspect sensors,
three-dimensional coordinates of a first path traversed by at
least a part of a player as the at least part of the player moves
along three respective orthogonal axes in a designated region of
3D coordinate space, wherein the first path conveys directions
from the player related to the wagering game;
causing, via at least one of the one or more processors, at
least one of the plurality of selectable 3D elements to appear to
move along a second path in the displayed 3D game
environment, wherein the second path is responsive to the
detected three-dimensional coordinates of the first path, and
wherein moving the at least one of the plurality of selectable 3D
elements along the second path yields a randomly selected
outcome of the wagering game.
Appeal Br. 21.
2
Appeal 2017-011023
Application 12/742,005
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 12, 38, 39, 46, 67, 70-74, 77, 81, and 83-
108 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Vancura3 in view of
Kumar. 4
2. The Examiner rejects claims 3, 68, 78-80, and 82 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Vancura in view of Kumar and Lutnick. 5
3. The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 69 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Vancura in view of Kumar and Sutton. 6
4. The Examiner rejects claims 10, 11, 75, and 76 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Vancura in view of Kumar and Best.7
DISCUSSION
Re} ection over Vancura and Kumar
Each of independent claims 1, 67, 83, and 96 requires displaying a
three-dimensional game environment and detecting a first path along three
respective orthogonal axes in a designated region of three-dimensional
coordinate space. See Appeal Br. 21, 23, 26, 28. As discussed below, we
are persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of these claims to the extent
the Examiner relies on Vancura as disclosing these limitations.
In rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner finds, inter alia,
that Vancura discloses:
3 Vancura, US 6,997,805 B2, iss. Feb. 14, 2006.
4 Kumar et al., US 6,222,465 B 1, iss. Apr. 24, 2001 ("Kumar").
5 Lutnick et al., US 2008/0300055 Al, pub. Dec. 4, 2008 ("Lutnick").
6 Sutton et al., US 2006/0281543 Al, pub. Dec. 14, 2006 ("Sutton").
7 Best, US 7,326,117 Bl, iss. Feb. 5, 2008.
3
Appeal 2017-011023
Application 12/742,005
• displaying, via at least one of one or more display devices, a
three-dimensional (3D) game environment that relates to the
wagering game, the displayed 3D game environment image
including a plurality of selectable 3D elements (i.e. part G and
a-g) (FIG. 3A); and
• detecting, via one or more sensors (i.e. a touch screen described
in ,r 38), 8 a first path traversed by at least a part of a player (i.e.
the hand of the player) as the at least part of the player moves
along three respective orthogonal axes, wherein the first path
conveys directions from the player related to the wagering
game event (i.e. the player's path selection by selecting "tile a"
reads on the claimed limitation of conveys directions from the
player related to a wagering game event) (FIG. 3A; ,r,r 38 and
57).
Final Act. 2-3. Further, the Examiner indicates that Vancura does not
disclose "detecting, via one or more hands-only-aspect sensors, three-
dimensional coordinates of 'a first path traversed by at least a part of a
player,"' for which the Examiner relies on Kumar. Id. at 4.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Vancura does not disclose a three-
dimensional game environment or three-dimensional elements moving along
a three-dimensional path. Appeal Br. 17-18. We agree. We have reviewed
Vancura's disclosure with respect to Figure 3A, and we see no indication
that Vancura's method detects a first path along three respective orthogonal
axes. Rather, we agree with Appellants that Vancura's Figure 3A is merely
8 We note that Vancura is an issued patent that does not include paragraph
numbers.
4
Appeal 2017-011023
Application 12/742,005
a perspective drawing of an exemplary touch screen display output. See id.
Although Vancura discloses that the user selects a path as depicted in Figure
3A at Steps 1--4, we see no disclosure that Vancura detects the path chosen
by the user along three orthogonal axes. See Vancura col. 7, 1. 15---col. 9, 1.
6. Rather, the user's character moves from left to right and either up or
down, i.e., along two axes, based on a user's selections, e.g., the selection of
either "a" or "b." Id. The Examiner has not identified any disclosure in
Vancura of the detection of a path along three respective orthogonal axes, as
required by the claims.
Further, to the extent the Examiner also indicates that Vancura is
relied upon as disclosing a three-dimensional gaming environment, we
disagree with this finding. See Final Act. 15 ("Vancura offers a 3d gaming
environment (FIG. 3A)"); Ans. 14. Rather, we agree with Appellants that
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires a narrower
interpretation than that relied upon by the Examiner. As discussed above,
Vancura discloses a three-dimensional environment only to the extent that
Vancura provides a two-dimensional perspective displayed image, i.e., an
image with the appearance of three dimensions projected on a two-
dimensional display. However, the plain language of the claim requires a
narrower interpretation. In particular, the claim language requires that the
gaming environment include selectable three-dimensional elements and that
those elements can move in response to the detected three-dimensional
coordinates of the first path discussed above. Thus, the three-dimensional
gaming environment requires a display to incorporate "three respective
orthogonal axes." This interpretation of the claims is consistent with the
manner in which the three-dimensional game environment is used in the
5
Appeal 2017-011023
Application 12/742,005
Specification. For example, the Specification makes clear that a three-
dimensional game environment requires more than the appearance of three
dimensions and actually requires an environment in which three-dimensional
gestures are translated from physical three-dimensional space into a virtual
three-dimensional space of the game, and thus, the environment must be
capable of detecting and displaying movement along three axes. See Spec.
,r,r 9--11, 67, 68; see also Appeal Br. 11-13. Thus, we are persuaded of error
in the rejection to the extent the Examiner relies on Vancura as disclosing a
three-dimensional gaming environment, as recited in each of the
independent claims.
Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of independent claims 1, 6 7, 83, and 96. For the same reasons, we
are persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of dependent claims 12, 38,
39, 46, 70-74, 77, 81, 84--95, and 97-108. Accordingly, we do not sustain
this rejection.
Remaining Obviousness Rejections
The Examiner does not rely on the art of record in a manner that cures
the deficiencies in the rejection of the independent claims, as discussed
above. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejections of claims 3, 7, 10, 11, 68,
69, 75, 76, 78-80, and 82.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1, 3, 7, 10-12, 38, 39, 46, and
67-108.
REVERSED
6