Ex Parte Gawel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 22, 2013

10575387 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2013)

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.
10/575,387 05/14/2007 Marek Gawel 298-310 9029
28249 7590 05/23/2013
DILWORTH & BARRESE, LLP
1000 WOODBURY ROAD
SUITE 405
WOODBURY, NY 11797
EXAMINER
LIM, SENG HENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3717
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MAREK GAWEL and JOHANN F. GRAF
____________________

Appeal 2011-004393
Application 10/575,387
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-004393
Application 10/575,387

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 6 and 8-291 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Palmer (GB 2326505 A, pub. Dec. 23, 1998), Cole (US
2004/0018870 A1, pub. Jan. 29, 2004), and Satoh (US 2004/0061284 A1,
pub. Apr. 1, 2004). Claims 1-5 and 7 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
THE INVENTION
Claims 6, 26, and 27 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 6,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
6. Gaming machine, comprising a gaming
machine cabinet (10) and a doorframe (15)
hingedly attached thereto and pivotally movable
around a substantially vertical edge between an
open position and a closed position, at least two
display monitors (28a, 28b) affixed to said
doorframe (15) or [sic] said gaming machine
cabinet (10) to be viewable through at least one
opening (17a, I7b) in said doorframe (15) when
said doorframe (15) is in the closed position,
wherein said two display monitors (28a, 28b) are

1 We note that the Grounds of Rejection section on page 4 of the Examiner’s
Answer identifies only claims 6 and 8-27 as the rejected claims. Similarly,
Appellants list only claims 6 and 8-27 in the Grounds of Rejection to be
Reviewed on Appeal in their Appeal Brief. Br. 11. However, the Examiner
discusses claims 28 and 29 in the description of the rejection (Ans. 9-10),
and Appellants include claims 28 and 29 in the listing of appealed claims in
the Status of Claims section of their Appeal Brief. Br. 3. We thus take the
above-noted omissions of claims 28 and 29 to be inadvertent and treat
claims 28 and 29 as being rejected under the same ground of rejection as
claims 6 and 8-27.
Appeal 2011-004393
Application 10/575,387

3
positioned one above the other at an obtuse angle
relative to each other and are fixedly attached to
said doorframe (15) and said doorframe (15) is
supported on said gaming machine cabinet (10) by
a substantially vertical hinge to open and close said
doorframe together with the two display monitors
(28a, 28b) affixed thereto relative to said gaming
machine cabinet (10), and said door frame (15) is
provided below said two display monitors (28a,
28b) with a game control panel (20) running from
one edge of the doorframe (15) to the other,
wherein said game control panel (20) is inclined
with respect to the two display monitors (28a, 28b)
positioned above said game control panel (20), and
wherein both the display monitors (28a, 28b) and
the game control panel (20) are simultaneously
moved to the open position relative to said gaming
machine cabinet (10) upon opening of the
doorframe (15) to provide access for maintenance
to back sides of the display monitors (28a, 28b)
and game control panel (20) and to interior
components of the gaming machine cabinet (10).

ANALYSIS
Independent claims 6 and 27
Claims 6 and 27 both call for a game control panel that is inclined
with respect to two display monitors. In rejecting the claims as unpatentable
over the combination of Palmer, Cole, and Satoh, the Examiner relies on
Palmer as disclosing a “game control panel” 31 that is inclined with respect
to the two display devices 12, 27. Ans. 4, 11 (citing Palmer, p. 8, ll. 16-17;
fig. 1).
We agree with Appellants that none of the cited references (including
Palmer) discloses “a game control panel inclined with respect to the two
display monitors.” Br. 13. The elements 31 are described as “user press-
Appeal 2011-004393
Application 10/575,387

4
buttons” located “at the bottom of the front frame structure 7.” Palmer, p. 8,
ll. 16-17. While no written description is provided regarding the orientation
of the press-buttons 31 relative to the display devices 12, 27, Figure 1 of
Palmer shows the press-buttons 31 to be set flush on the glass panel 12. As
such, the press-buttons 31 are coplanar with the panel 12 and, contrary to the
Examiner’s contention, are not inclined with respect to either the panel 12 or
a display monitor that may be located behind the panel 12.
Accordingly, the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of
the evidence that the combination of references discloses a game control
panel inclined with respect to two display monitors. We thus do not sustain
the rejection of independent claims 6 and 27, and of claims 8-25, 28, and 29
depending therefrom.
Independent claim 26
Claim 26 recites a gaming machine having a cabinet with a doorframe
hingedly attached thereto and pivotable around a substantially vertical edge,
and at least three display panels affixed to the doorframe.
In rejecting claim 26, the Examiner finds that Palmer discloses a
gaming machine cabinet 1 and a front wall structure 7, interpreted as the
recited “doorframe,” hingedly attached about a horizontal edge of the
cabinet 1. Ans. 6-7. The Examiner also finds that Palmer discloses
“multiple display panels” wherein each panel “is oriented at an obtuse angle
with respect to the adjacent display panel.” Ans. 7. Specifically, the
Examiner identifies Palmer’s “display unit 27 being mounted to the cabinet
1 behind the upper panel 11” and “display panel [12] showing mechanical
slot reels [21]” as display panels. Ans. 4; see also Ans. 10 (finding “Palmer
discloses having multiple display panels (11 & 20: Fig. 1), wherein behind
Appeal 2011-004393
Application 10/575,387

5
each display panels [sic] comprises a display unit (27, page 8, lines 8-9) and
slot reels (21, page 7, lines 15-19 & Fig. 2)”). The Examiner concedes that
Palmer does not disclose display monitors affixed to the doorframe 7
(Ans. 4, 10) but finds that Cole discloses using a video display monitor in
place of mechanical slot reels and mounting such display monitors to the
doorframe (Ans. 4-5, 7, 10). The Examiner then concludes it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Palmer by
mounting display monitors to the doorframe as taught by Cole. Ans. 5.
The Examiner also concludes that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to have the doorframe open and close about a
vertical axis rather than a horizontal axis as taught by Satoh. Ans. 5; see
also Ans. 7. Regarding the claim 26 limitation of at least three display
panels, the Examiner states that adding a third display to Palmer involves
only routine skill in the art and concludes it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art “to modify Palmer to include three display panels”
so as “to increase the amount of information being presented to the player.”
Ans. 7.
Appellants argue that none of the cited references discloses “(a) two
display monitors fixedly attached to the doorframe and positioned one above
the other at an obtuse angle and (b) a game control panel inclined with
respect to the two display monitors positioned above it.”2 Br. 13.
We are not persuaded by either of these arguments with respect to
claim 26. The argument regarding an inclined game control panel is not

2 Appellants do not offer any argument against the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions regarding (1) the doorframe being pivotally movable around a
vertical edge, and (2) the inclusion of a third display monitor.
Appeal 2011-004393
Application 10/575,387

6
convincing because claim 26 does not recite a game control panel.
Regarding Appellants’ other line of argument, we disagree that the
Examiner’s proposed combination would lack display monitors mounted to
the doorframe. Appellants assert that Cole does not disclose “two display
monitors positioned one above the other at an obtuse angle” and neither
Palmer nor Satoh discloses display monitors affixed to the doorframe.
Br. 13-14. However, the Examiner correctly notes that these assertions
argue the references individually and do not attack the proposed
combination of the references. Ans. 11. As discussed supra, the Examiner
does not contend that Palmer discloses affixing display monitors to a
doorframe; rather, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to replace Palmer’s display devices (i.e., display unit 27 and slot reels 21)
with display monitors and to affix those display monitors to Palmer’s
doorframe 7 per the teaching of Cole. We agree with the Examiner’s
rationale that the proposed modification would “create greater flexibility in
the manner in which gaming machines may be upgraded.” Ans. 5. In
addition, we note that Cole teaches affixing a video display to the door of a
gaming device provides many advantages, including freeing up space within
the cabinet, making the cabinet interior more accessible, and rendering the
display more accessible for servicing and removal. Cole, para. [0081].
We also agree with the Examiner that the display panels of Palmer,
which are positioned one above the other, define an obtuse angle. This is
seen in Figure 1 of Palmer, which shows the upper and lower glass panels 11
and 12 forming an obtuse angle relative to each other. When the references
are combined in the manner proposed by the Examiner, the display monitors
Appeal 2011-004393
Application 10/575,387

7
mounted to the panels 11 and 12 likewise would form an obtuse angle
relative to each other.
In view of the above, Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of
error, and we sustain the rejection of claim 26.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 6, 8-25, and
27-29.
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claim 26.
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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Klh