Ex Parte Gauselmann

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 24, 2011

10146565 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 24, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/146,565 05/14/2002 Michael Gauselmann ATR-A-102 8098
32566 7590 02/25/2011
PATENT LAW GROUP LLP
2635 NORTH FIRST STREET
SUITE 223
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
EXAMINER
PANDYA, SUNIT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3718
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL GAUSELMANN
____________

Appeal 2009-012038
Application 10/146,565
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, and
STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-012038
Application 10/146,565

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Michael Gauselmann (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4-6, 8-11, 13, 15-26, 29, 30, 32,
and 34-50. Claims 1-3, 7, 12, 14, 27, 28, 31, and 33 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The claimed invention is to a gaming device and gaming method.
Claim 34, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
34. A gaming device comprising:
a display area for displaying a main game,
the main game having a plurality of possible
outcomes, at least one of the outcomes enabling a
secondary game; and
at least one processor and display for
displaying the secondary game, the at least one
processor being programmed for carrying out the
secondary game comprising:
displaying a plurality of icons to a player,
each icon representing an unknown element;
displaying all the elements to a player
without identifying which icons are associated
with the elements prior to player selection; and
receiving player selection signals conveying
a selection of at least one of the icons,
wherein there are N icons, and the icons, if
selected, convey award values, the secondary game
further comprising:
displaying to the player M multiplier values,
where M < N and where M and N are integers, and
where the M multiplier values are displayed
without being first selected by the player; and
allowing the player to apply a multiplier
value to a selected icon.
Appeal 2009-012038
Application 10/146,565

3
The Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Blankstein US 2002/0187827 A1 Dec. 12, 2002
Kaminkow US 6,599,185 B1 Jul. 29, 2003
McGahn US 6,659,864 B2 Dec. 9, 2003

The Rejections
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review:
Claims 4-11, 13, 15-26, and 45-50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.2 Ans. 4-5.
Claims 4-6, 8-11, 13, 15-26, 29, 30, 32, and 34-45 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Blankstein and
Kaminkow. Ans. 5-14.
Claims 46-50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of McGahn and Kaminkow. Ans. 14-17.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

DISCUSSION
§ 101 Rejection
Appellant presents no arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 4-11, 13, 15-26, and 45-50 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly,

2 During prosecution the Appellant canceled claim 7. As such, the rejection
of claim 7 is not before us for review.
Appeal 2009-012038
Application 10/146,565

4
we will summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejection with respect to claims 4-
6, 8-11, 13, 15-26, 29, 30, 32, and 34-50.
§ 103 Rejection based on Blankstein and Kaminkow
Appellant argues that both Blankstein and Kaminkow, alone or in
combination, fail to render obvious displaying to the player M multiplier or
award values, where the M multiplier or award values are displayed without
being first selected by the player as set forth in claims 13, 15, and 34. See
App. Br. 9-11. We concur. Our reasons follow.
For the embodiment disclosed as Bonus Game #3, a person having
ordinary skill in the art would understand that Blankstein teaches a bonus or
secondary game where the player selects one of N indicia 120 and one of M
multipliers 122. Both are concealed from the player prior to selecting. Page
3, para. [0021]. For the embodiment disclosed as Bonus Game #1, a person
having ordinary skill in the art would understand that Blankstein teaches a
bonus or secondary game where the player selects N number of indicia until
one of M events occurs, e.g., three strikes, all of the indicia are drawn
without strikes, all of the indicia are drawn with some of the strikes. Page 2,
para. [0018]. Within these two bonus games, the M multiplier 122, or what
is about to occur in an event, is not displayed until the player selects the area
on the display where the multiplier is located. As such, Blankstein fails to
teach displaying to the player M award values where the values are
displayed without being first selected by the player.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that
Kaminkow teaches in a bonus or secondary game a number of N selections
158. The player would select one of these N selections by pressing the start
button 163. Then, the bonus game distributes the M awards 162 to the
Appeal 2009-012038
Application 10/146,565

5
selections 158. Prior to distributing the M awards, the game determines
what awards are going to be distributed to the player selected selection 158b.
Col. 7, ll. 12-43. As such, the M awards are not displayed without being
first selected by the player since the bonus game, not the player, is
distributing (selecting) the M awards. Notwithstanding the relatively
ambitious language appearing in the Kaminkow patent, Kaminkow never
expressly discloses or teaches how to suitably reveal or unmask M awards,
as appears intimated by the Examiner in order to maintain the rejection. It is
clear from viewing the drawings, see Figures 8 and 9, and reading the
disclosure of Kaminkow that the M awards are concealed and not revealed
until after the bonus game determines and distributes the M awards to the N
selections, which include both the player selection 158b and the non-player
selections.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that displaying to the player
multiplier or award values without being first selected by the player would
not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art given the
combined teachings of Blankstein and Kaminkow.
§ 103 Rejection based on McGahn and Kaminkow
Appellant argues that both McGahn and Kaminkow, alone or in
combination, fail to render obvious displaying to the player M multiplier or
award values, where the M multiplier or award values are displayed without
being first selected by the player as set forth in claim 46. See App. Br. 12-
14. We concur. Our reasons follow.
Kaminkow has been discussed supra and the Examiner relies on the
same teachings and intimations in order to maintain the rejection of claims
46-50.
Appeal 2009-012038
Application 10/146,565

6
Contrary to the Examiner’s assertion, McGahn does not disclose
revealing one of the unknown elements prior to the player making any
selection of the icons. The Examiner has misread and misapplied the
teachings of McGahn when utilizing both Figure 3 and Figure 4 together.
Figure 3 and Figure 4 are representations of different award selection
embodiments (bonus games) that are not disclosed as being used together in
any manner. The bonus game represented by Figure 3 maintains selectors
52, 54, 56, and 58 as masked and prompts the player that there is a chance
one of the three selectors within the group 54, 56, 58 has more credits than
what is masked behind the initial award selector 52. Col. 7, ll. 47-53. The
bonus game represented by Figure 4 does reveal the initial award selector 52
and prompts the player that one of the three selectors has more than the
initial award selector 52. Col. 7, l. 63 through col. 8, l. 7. There would be
no rational reason to display all the selectors prior to the player selecting,
because then the player would always know which selector to select to
receive the highest award. App. Br. 13.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that displaying to the player
icons representing unknown elements and revealing an unknown element to
the player prior to the player making any selection of the icons would not
have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art given the
combined teachings of McGahn and Kaminkow.

CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, we will summarily sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 4-6, 8-11, 13, 15-26, and 45-50 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Appeal 2009-012038
Application 10/146,565

7
and not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4-6, 8-11, 13, 15-26, 29,
30, 32, and 34-50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 4-6, 8-11, 13, 15-26, and 45-
50 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 4-6, 8-11, 13, 15-26, 29, 30,
32, and 34-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of
Blankstein and Kaminkow is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 46-50 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of McGahn and Kaminkow is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

Klh

PATENT LAW GROUP LLP
2635 NORTH FIRST STREET
SUITE 223
SAN JOSE, CA 95134