Ex Parte Grauzer et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 28, 201109967500 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 28, 2011) 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. 09/967,500 09/28/2001 Attila Grauzer PA0618.ap.US 4152 75035 7590 07/28/2011 Mark A Litman and Associates, P.A. York Business Center 3209 w. 76th Street Suite 205 Edina, MN 55435 EXAMINER VO, PETER DUNG BA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3718 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/28/2011 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 ATTILA GRAUZER and DAVID B. LOPEZ ____________________ Appeal 2009-011535 Application 09/967,500 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: WILLIAM F. PATE III, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges. PATE III, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-011535 Application 09/967,500 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 24-42, 48 and 49. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to method and apparatus for using upstream communication in a card shuffler. Claim 24, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 24. A method of controlling a live casino table card game in a gaming table environment, the gaming table environment comprising a gaming table, an automatic card shuffler comprising a processor, a local processor and a central control computer, the method comprising: the shuffler processor sending information via a data connection to at least one of the local processor and the central control computer; and at least one of the local processor and the central control computer communicating information to the shuffler processor; wherein the automatic card shuffler responds to the information communicated to the shuffler processor. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Verschoor1 McCrea US 5,356,145 US 6,093,103 Oct. 18, 1994 Jul. 25, 2000 1 Although the rejection is one of anticipation, the McCrea reference incorporates the disclosure of Verschoor, and we reference that patent here. Appeal 2009-011535 Application 09/967,500 3 REJECTION Claims 24-42, 48 and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by McCrea. Ans. 3. OPINION We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in light of the arguments of the Appellants and the Examiner. As a result of this review we have determined that the appealed claims do not lack novelty over the McCrea reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Therefore the rejection on appeal is reversed. Our reasons follow. All claims on appeal require some communication from a local processor or a central control computer to a shuffler processor installed in the card shuffler. Appellants argue that McCrea does not provide communication from these processors to the shuffle processor. App. Br. 14- 15, Reply Br. 4. As an initial matter, we note that McCrea uses arrows in the drawing to designate the flow of data or information. For example, the game computer communicates with the central controller on line L1 with two way communication as illustrated by the two way arrows. McCrea, fig. 2. We further note that the shuffler has only a one way arrow at line 248 and 244 going toward the game controller GC. Id. This is evidence that the shuffler does not receive communications from the game controller GC. The Examiner relies on column 8, lines 48-54 of McCrea. We have carefully considered the disclosure in this paragraph, and it is our finding that the disclosure therein does not support the Examiner’s argument that there is two way communication between the shuffler and the game controller GC. For example, we find no evidence therein that the game Appeal 2009-011535 Application 09/967,500 4 controller GC resets the game and results in new hands to be played by communication with the shuffler as the Examiner has argued on page 4 of the Answer. Furthermore, we find no evidence in the Verschoor reference that the microprocessor in the shuffler can receive communication from a game controller or a local processor. In our view, Verschoor teaches that the processor and the shuffler disclosed therein are for the purpose of randomizing the cards as they are shuffled. There is no disclosure that this processor can receive information from an outside computer. Based on our review of the evidence, it is our finding that the Examiner has not established that the shuffler receives communication from the local processor or game controller in the McCrea disclosure as required by the claims on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner has not established that the claims on appeal lack novelty over the McCrea reference. On pages 6 and 7 of the Answer, the Examiner argues that such communication is inherent in the McCrea game, again referring to column 8, lines 48-54. We find nothing in this passage that necessitates any signal from the game controller to the modified shuffler show in McCrea. Therefore we disagree with the Examiner’s finding of inherency. DECISION The rejection of claims 24-42, 48 and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed. REVERSED nlk Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation