Ex Parte Grauzer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201613431757 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/431,757 03/27/2012 Attila Grauzer 3286-8032.3US(PA3818.ap.U 4763 66137 7590 01/04/2017 TRASKBRITT, P.C. /Bally Gaming, Inc. PO Box 2550 Salt Lake City, UT 84110 EXAMINER PIERCE, WILLIAM M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3711 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2017 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): U S PTOMail @ traskbritt .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ATTILA GRAUZER, ERNST BLAHA, PETER KRENN, and PAUL K. SCHEPER Appeal 2015-0028721 Application 13/431,7572 Technology Center 3700 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed June 17, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jan. 6, 2015), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 6, 2014) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Jan. 17, 2014). 2 Appellants identify “SHFL [Ejntertainment, Inc. (formerly known as Shuffle Master, Inc.” as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2015-002872 Application 13/431,757 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention relates to devices for handling playing cards. Spec. 12. Claims 1, 10, 13, 17, and 19 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A card handling device, comprising: a card handling zone; a card infeed tray configured to receive cards to be moved into the card handling zone and a separate a card output tray configured to receive cards moved from the card handling zone, a plane defined by an opening to the card output tray being at least substantially coplanar with another plane defined by an opening to the card infeed tray, the card infeed tray and the card output tray located adjacent one another on a common side of the card handling zone; a user input for receiving an input instruction from a user; a card sensing system configured to identify at least one feature or characteristic of each card handled by the card handling device; and a control system comprising: at least one electronic signal processor; at least one memory device in electrical communication with the at least one electronic signal processor; and a computer program stored in memory of the at least one memory device, the computer program programmed to cause the control system to selectively control at least one of a card infeed system, the card handling zone, and a card output system of the card handling device and to receive an input from the user input to selectively perform at least one of a shuffling operation, a sorting operation, and a dealing operation using the card handling device. 2 Appeal 2015-002872 Application 13/431,757 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 5—17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Johnson ’127 (US 6,676,127 B2, iss. Jan. 13, 2004). Claims 1, 5—17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Johnson ’127, Hill (US 6,039,650, iss. Mar. 21, 2000), and Johnson ’310 (US 5,944,310, iss. Aug. 31, 1999). Claims 2-4, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Johnson ’127 and Hill. ANALYSIS Claim Construction We begin our analysis by first considering the scope and meaning of the term “coplanar,” as used in independent claims 1, 10, 13, 17, and 19. As shown in Figure 1 of Appellants’ Specification, reproduced below, a card device 10 includes, in part, a card infeed tray 12 having an upper edge 26, a card output tray 14 having an upper edge 28, and a flat flange 30. 3 Appeal 2015-002872 Application 13/431,757 FIG. 1 Figure 1 above depicts a card device 10. Appellants’ Specification describes with reference to Figure 1 that the flat flange 30, the upper edge 26 of the card infeed tray 12, and the upper edge 28 of the card output tray 14 may be disposed in substantially the same plane. In other words, the upper edge 26 of the card infeed tray 12 and the upper edge 28 of the card output tray 14 may be substantially co-planar. Spec. 140. The Specification further describes that this co-planar arrangement of the card infeed tray 12 and card output tray 14 enables the card handling device 10 [to] be mounted for use on or in a gaming table such that the flat flange 30, the upper edge 26 of the card infeed tray 12, and the upper edge 28 of the card output tray 14 are substantially flush with the upper surface of the gaming table. Id. This arrangement provides ergonometric advantages by allowing a dealer to move his or her hands smaller distances during card handling. Id. 144. 4 Appeal 2015-002872 Application 13/431,757 We determine that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the claim language and Specification that “coplanar,” as used in claims 1, 10, 13, 17, and 19, means that an opening of the card output tray and an opening to the card input tray are arranged in the same horizontal plane, such as a plane defined by a card game table. With this understanding in mind, we turn to the merits of the Examiner’s rejections. Anticipation Independent Claims 1, 10, 13, 17, and 19, and Dependent Claims 5—9, 11, 12, and 14—16 We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Johnson ’127 does not disclose “a plane defined by an opening to the card output tray being at least substantially coplanar with another plane defined by an opening to the card infeed tray,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 10, 13, 17, and 19. App. Br. 18—22; see also Reply Br. 2— 3. The Examiner finds collector tray 26 constitutes the claimed card infeed tray, and holding means 12 constitutes the claimed card output tray. Final Act. 3—4. The Examiner takes the position that an exit of holding means 12 constitutes the claimed opening of the card output tray, and is coplanar to an opening of collector tray 26. Id. However, we agree with Appellants (App. Br. 19—20) that an internal aperture from which cards exit a holding means, as described by Johnson ’127, does not describe the claimed “opening to the card output tray,” as recited in claim 1. 5 Appeal 2015-002872 Application 13/431,757 The Examiner alternatively finds that even though an opening to holding means 12 and an opening to collector tray 26 are shown in Figure 2 of Johnson ’127 as being arranged at different heights, the planes defined by these openings are nonetheless “coplanar,” as required by claim 1, because “any plane may be drawn from a horizontal through a vertical to meet the limitations of the claim.” Final Act. 3. However, we find that the openings of holding means 12 and collector tray 26 are not “coplanar,” as the term would be understood in view of the Specification by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claim 1 and dependent claims 5—9. Independent claims 10, 13, 17, and 19 include language substantially similar to the language of claim 1. Therefore, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 10, 13, 17, and 19 and dependent claims 11, 12, and 14—16. Obviousness In rejecting the claims as being obvious, the Examiner additionally posits that it would have been obvious to modify Johnson ’ 127 to rearrange the planes defined by the respective openings of holding means 12 and collector tray 26 to be substantially coplanar, as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 10, 13, 17, and 19, because Appellants have not “show[n] where [the coplanar] arrangement of [the claimed planes] over the prior art is critical by solving any particular problem or producing any unexpected results.” Final Act. 4. 6 Appeal 2015-002872 Application 13/431,757 There are cases where minor changes in the location and/or orientation of elements to arrive at the claimed invention may be an obvious matter of design choice. See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious”) (quoting Sakraida v. AgPro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 1031 (CCPA 1950) (the Board did not err in holding “there would be no invention in shifting the starting switch disclosed by Cannon to a different position since the operation of the device would not thereby be modified.”) However, simply stating that parts could be rearranged, without more, is insufficient to support a conclusion of obviousness. Instead, there must be articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1, 10, 13, 17, and 19. We also do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of dependent claims 2—9, 11, 12, 14—16, 18, and 20. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5—17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed. 7 Appeal 2015-002872 Application 13/431,757 The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed. REVERSED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation