Ex Parte GiobbiDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 26, 201210630141 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 26, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/630,141 07/30/2003 John J. Giobbi 247079-000107USD2 9474 70243 7590 03/26/2012 NIXON PEABODY LLP 300 S. Riverside Plaza 16th Floor CHICAGO, IL 60606 EXAMINER YOO, JASSON H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3718 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/26/2012 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 JOHN J. GIOBBI ____________________ Appeal 2010-003711 Application 10/630,141 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges. KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-003711 Application 10/630,141 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 101-104 and 106-125 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hedrick (US 6,908,387 B2; iss. Jun. 21, 2005), Rantze (US 6,536,658 B1; iss. Mar. 25, 2003) and Sizer (US 5,923,252; iss. Jul. 13, 1999). Appellant’s representative presented oral argument on Mar. 20, 2012. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention “relates generally to gaming machines and, more particularly, to a portable data unit for communicating with a gaming machine over a wireless transmission link for such purposes as cashless gaming, player tracking, game customization, and data transfer.” Spec. 1:5-8. Independent claim 101, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 101. A method of operating a gaming terminal, comprising: establishing a wireless transmission link with a portable data unit carried by an individual, the portable data unit storing information associated with the individual; transmitting the information associated with the individual to the gaming terminal; in response to the transmitting changing the operation of the gaming terminal to a first mode associated with the individual or a second mode associated with the individual depending upon at least one of (i) a distance between the portable data unit and the gaming terminal and (ii) a period of time for which the portable data unit is detected as being in the presence of the gaming terminal, the first mode being different from the second mode. Appeal 2010-003711 Application 10/630,141 3 OPINION Appellant argues that even if a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references as proposed, the proposed combination does not modify operation of the gaming terminal to a mode associated with the individual (or passerby) as called for in independent claims 101, 102, 112, and 120. App. Br. 13-14. Independent claim 101 is directed to a method of operating a gaming terminal that includes transmitting information associated with an individual to the gaming terminal and changing the operation of the gaming terminal from a first mode associated with the individual to a second mode1 associated with the individual depending on at least one of (1) distance or (ii) time.2 Consequently, claim 101 calls for the first and second different modes of operation of the gaming terminal to be associated with the individual. Similarly, independent claims 102 and 120 call for the first and second different modes of operation to be associated with a passerby, and independent claim 112 calls for a first mode of operation specific to a first passerby and a second mode of operation specific to a second passerby. Thus, in each of independent claims 101, 102, 112, and 120 the modes of operation are associated with a specific individual or passerby detected.3 1 Wherein the first and second modes are different from each other. 2 Distance between the portable data unit carried by the individual and the gaming terminal and a period of time for which the portable data unit is detected in the presence of the gaming terminal. 3 The gaming terminal (gaming machine 10) is adapted and configured to operate differently (modes) in response to information associated with an individual (personal identifier) or passerby (information, other than personal identification associated with the individual, such as player preferences (language, sound options, etc.)). Spec. 15:19-16:13. Appeal 2010-003711 Application 10/630,141 4 The Examiner found that Hendrick discloses a first mode (attract mode) as called for in independent claim 101. Ans. 6 (citing Hendrick, col. 12, ll. 23-304). This portion of the reference discloses that when the gaming terminal merely detects a person in front of the machine, an illumination or sound may be projected to attract a player’s attention.5 Hendrick, col. 12, ll. 23-30. However, this mode is not associated with a specific player detected. In other words, Hendrick’s attract mode is the same for any player detected and is not associated with the individual as called for in claim 101. Neither Rantze nor Sizer are relied upon to correct this deficiency. See Ans. 3-7. The rejection of independent claims 102, 112, and 120 is similarly flawed because the mode of operation of the gaming terminal of the proposed combination is the same for any player (passerby) detected, and is not associated with a specific player (passerby). See Ans. 3-5, 8-14. As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 101, 102, 112, and 120 or their dependent claims 103, 104, 106-111, 113-119, and 121-125. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 101-104 and 106- 125. 4 The Examiner cites lines 23-20; however, based on the contents of Hendrick, this appears to be a typographical error intending to refer to lines 23-30. 5 The person may be detected by a proximity sensor on the player tracking unit in device housing 200 of the gaming machine (e.g. an infrared device), or by a Bluetooth device that is activated (presumably referring to wireless interface 264 of the gaming machine that communicates with the portable wireless device worn or carried by a player (e.g. portable wireless interface 602)). Hendrick, col. 10, ll. 46-56; col. 12, ll. 23-30; col. 19, ll. 51-52; figs 2C, 5. Appeal 2010-003711 Application 10/630,141 5 REVERSED MP Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation