Ex Parte Grauzer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 28, 2011

09967500 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 28, 2011)

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