Ex Parte Gomez et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 8, 2018

12667102 (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/667,102 12/29/2009 Benjamin T. Gomez
70243 7590 05/10/2018
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.
247079-000562USPX 4057
EXAMINER
70 West Madison, Suite 3500 HSU, RYAN
CHICAGO, IL 60602
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/10/2018 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 BENJAMIN T. GOMEZ and ALFRED THOMAS
Appeal2017-004632
Application 12/667,102
Technology Center 3700
Before ANTON W. PETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 28, 29, 31-38, and 42--47. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellants, the invention "relates generally to gaming
machines, and methods for playing wagering games, and more particularly,
to a wagering game having hybrid winning outcomes." Spec. i-f 2.
1 According to Appellants, "[ t ]he real party in interest is Bally Gaming,
Inc., ... [which] is a wholly owned subsidiary of Scientific Games Corp."
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-004632
Application 12/667, 102
Claims 28, 35, and 42 are the independent claims on appeal. Below, we
reproduce claim 28 as illustrative of the appealed claims.
28. A gaming system comprising:
a gaming machine primarily used for playing at least one
casino wagering game, the gaming machine including a gaming
housing, an electronic display device having a display region
displaying an array of moveable reels having symbols for
indicating a randomly selected outcome of the casino wagering
game, and one or more electronic input devices, the electronic
display device and the one or more electronic input devices being
coupled to the gaming housing, at least one of the one or more
input devices being configured to detect a physical item
associated with a monetary value that establishes a credit
balance, the credit balance changing based on play of the casino
wagering game; and one or more controllers configured to:
initiate the casino wagering game responsive to a wager of
credits from the credit balance; and
direct the electronic display device to display the array
including a singular like symbol winning combination
representing at least a part of the randomly selected game
outcome, wherein the like-symbol winning combination
comprises a pay line portion including a predetermined number
of like symbols along an activated payline and a scatter-pay
portion including one or more additional like-symbols displayed
elsewhere in the array.
2
Appeal2017-004632
Application 12/667, 102
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART2
The Examiner rejects claims 28, 31, 33, 34, 42--44, 46, and 47 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Jensen (US 8,137,179 B2, iss. Mar. 20,
2012).
The Examiner rejects claims 29, 35-38, and 45 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Jensen.
The Examiner rejects claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jensen and Rodgers (US 2006/0030392 Al, pub. Feb. 9,
2006).
ANALYSIS
Anticipation rejection
Independent claim 28 and its dependent claims 31, 33, and 34
Independent claim 28 recites, among other recitations, a controller
configured to
direct the electronic display device to display the array including
a singular like symbol winning combination representing at least
a part of the randomly selected game outcome, wherein the like-
symbol winning combination comprises a pay line portion
2 It appears that the Answer's Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on
Appeal section includes typographical errors. See Answer 2. Specifically,
the section expressly indicates that the Examiner withdraws the rejection of
claims 28--47 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and maintains the rejections of
claims 28, 29, 31, 33-38, 42, and 44--47 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
(see id.), but the section does not indicate whether the Examiner withdraws
or maintains the anticipation rejection of claim 43 (see Final Action 10), or
the obviousness rejection of claim 32 (see id. at 15). Inasmuch as the
Examiner does not indicate withdrawal of these anticipation and obviousness
rejections, we understand that the rejections remain pending. See Answer 2
("Every ground of rejection set forth in the Office [A]ction dated 11/19/15[,]
from which the appeal is taken[,] is being maintained by the [E]xaminer[,]
except for the grounds of rejection (if any) listed under the subheading
'WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS."').
3
Appeal2017-004632
Application 12/667, 102
including a predetermined number of like symbols along an
activated pay line and a scatter-pay portion including one or more
additional like-symbols displayed elsewhere in the array.
Appeal Br., Claims App. Appellants' argument, essentially, is that
for . . . Jensen . . . to disclose . . . Appellants' "singular like-
symbol winning combination," Jensen must teach a winning
symbol combination comprised of both ( 1) a pay line portion with
a first winning symbol and (2) a scatter-pay portion with at least
one additional first winning symbol that is not part of the payline.
(id. at 11; see also id. at 11-13), but Jensen's controller is not configured to
display such a winning combination (id. at 13-15).
Even assuming arguendo, however, that we agree with Appellants'
argument regarding the scope of claim 28, we do not agree with Appellants'
argument that Jensen fails to disclose a controller configured to display such
a winning combination. First, we note that the recitations of claim 35 do not
preclude wining combinations other than combinations of both "( 1) a
payline portion with a first winning symbol and (2) a scatter-pay portion
with at least one additional first winning symbol that is not part of the
payline." Restated, Jensen teaches a controller configured as claimed if, for
example, in addition to displaying winning combinations with both a payline
portion and a scatter-pay portion, the controller displays other winning
combinations made up of paylines, and/or winning combinations of scatter-
pay portions. This, in essence, is what is disclosed by Jensen's column 9,
lines 2-10, on which the Examiner relies to disclose the claimed controller.
See, e.g., Answer 3. More specifically, while Jensen does disclose a
controller displaying winning combinations of pay lines only, and winning
combinations of scatter-pay arrangements, a reasonable reading of the cited
portion of Jensen is that "[i]n one embodiment, the gaming device awards
prizes after the reels of the primary game stop spinning if specified types
4
Appeal2017-004632
Application 12/667, 102
and/or configurations of indicia or symbols occur on an active payline ...
and ... occur in a scatter[ -]pay arrangement." Jensen col. 9, 11. 2-10
(emphasis added).
Thus, based on the foregoing, Appellants do not persuade us that the
Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim 2 8 is in error.
Therefore, we sustain claim 28's rejection, as well as the rejection of
claims 31, 33, and 34 that depend from claim 28.
Independent claim 42 and its dependent claims 43, 44, 46,
and47
Appellants argue that the rejection of independent claim 42, and
dependent claims 43, 44, 46, and 47, is in error for substantially the same
reasons as those set forth above for claim 28. Thus, we sustain the rejection
of claims 42--44, 46, and 47 for substantially the same reasons we sustain
claim 28's rejection, supra.
Obviousness rejections based solely on Jensen
Dependent claims 29 and 45
Claims 29 and 45 depend from independent claims 28 and 42,
respectively, and we affirm the independent claims' anticipation rejection
based on Jensen, supra. Appellants argue that the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 29 and 45, based solely on Jensen, is in error because
although Jensen discusses that gaming systems may use multi-symbol or
single-symbol reels, Jensen does not disclose a gaming system having two or
more multi-symbol reels, and at least one single-symbol reel, as claimed.
Appeal Br. 19-21. We are not persuaded of error, however.
We agree with the Examiner that
Jensen explicitly states that one or more of the reels are
independent reels or unisymbol reels (see col. 9; l[l]. 2-10) ....
[T]he teaching of both multi-symbol reels and single-symbol
5
Appeal2017-004632
Application 12/667, 102
reels are known in the art[,] and utilizing different configurations
on the display array merely yield the predictable result of
increasing the number of possible combinations that may be
presented on a display.
Answer 9. Restated, we agree with the Examiner that both types of reels are
known in the art, and that it would have been obvious to modify Jensen to
use one type of reel in place of the other reel, in order to increase the
possible combinations that can be presented on the display for each spin of
the reels (see Answer 9), so as to provide a gaming system with two or more
multi-symbol reels and at least one single-symbol reel, as claimed.
Conversely, Appellants do not present evidence or a line of reasoning
sufficient to persuade us that something other than a predictable result
occurs by using two or more multi-symbol reels with at least one single-
symbol reel. Thus, based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of
claims 29 and 45.
Independent claim 3 5 and its dependent claims 3 6-3 8
Appellants argue that the Examiner errs in rejecting independent
claim 35 and its dependent claims 36-38 for essentially the same reasons as
those set forth above for dependent claims 29 and 45. Appeal Br. 17-19; id.
at 19-21. Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of Examiner error, and,
therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 35-38.
Obviousness rejection based on Jensen and Rodgers
Dependent claim 32
Although Appellants refer, in the Appeal Brief, to the Examiner's
rejection of claim 32 (see Appeal Br. 17), Appellants do not argue that the
Examiner's rejection is in error (see id. at 17-21 ). Thus, inasmuch as
Appellants do not persuade us that the Examiner errs, we sustain claim 32's
rejection.
6
Appeal2017-004632
Application 12/667, 102
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's anticipation and obviousness rejections
of claims 28, 29, 31-38, and 42--47.
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
7