Ex Parte GRISWOLD et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 29, 201813306911 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/306,911 11/29/2011 16629 7590 05/31/2018 Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP (IGT - Foley) Two North LaSalle Street Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60602-3801 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Chauncey W. GRISWOLD 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. 027438-0834/P001533-001 7841 EXAMINER D'AGOSTINO, PAUL ANTHONY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3716 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2018 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): patents@IGT.com amasia@ngelaw.com ipusmail@ngelaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHAUNCEY W. GRISWOLD, SCOTT T. GOWIN, STEVEN G. LEMAY, DWAYNE R. NELSON, and GREGORY A. SILVA Appeal2017-005648 Application 13/306,911 Technology Center 3700 Before JILL D. HILL, LISA M. GUIJT, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection2 of claims 1 and 5-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as IGT. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated February 24, 2016. 3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1 and 5-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written Appeal2017-005648 Application 13/306,911 We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1, 11, and 1 7 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal, with disputed limitations italicized for emphasis. 1. A gaming machine comprising: an exterior housing containing a plurality of internal gaming machine components therein; a master gaming controller in communication with at least one of said plurality of internal gaming machine components and configured to control one or more aspects of a wager-based game; at least one wager button supported by the exterior housing and in communication with said master gaming controller, the at least on wager button being configured to receive an input associated with a wager on said wager-based game; and a display device including a touch screen operable as a fingerprint detector, the display device supported by the exterior housing and in communication with at least one of said master gaming controller and a separate player tracking system, the display device configured to display one or more aspects of said wager-based game thereupon, the touch screen operable as the fingerprint detector configured to detect a fingerprint of a finger of a player contacting the touch screen without indicating the player that the fingerprint is being detected, said detected fingerprint facilitating anonymous tracking of gaming activities of said player without the use of a player tracking instrument for said player, wherein the master gaming controller is configured to transmit data representing said detected fingerprint to the separate player tracking system, which is configured to, after description requirement, in view of the claimed "confidence level increase events," and also under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Kelly (US 2009/0124376 Al; published May 14, 2009) and Kelly (US 2009/0176566 Al; July 9, 2009). Ans. 2. 2 Appeal2017-005648 Application 13/306,911 associating the detected fingerprint with an existing player profile stored on a database: (1) determine if a confidence level associated with the detected fingerprint exceeds a designated confidence level, said determination being separate from and in addition to any determination to associate any detected fingerprint with any existing player profile, said confidence level based on at least one earlier detection of said fingerprint; (2) if the confidence level exceeds the designated confidence level, attribute credit for gaming activity of the player to the existing player profile; (3) if the confidence level does not exceed the designated confidence level, not attribute the credit for the gaming activity of the player to the existing player profile based on the detected fingerprint; and ( 4) upon an occurrence of a confidence level increase event, increase the confidence level associated with said detected fingerprint for use upon a next detection of said fingerprint. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that there is no written description support in the Specification for claiming that a confidence level exceeds a designated confidence level, and thus, there is also no written description support for determining whether a confidence level exceeds a designated confidence level, or doing so separately and in addition to any determination to associate any detected fingerprint with any existing player profile, as required by independent claims 1, 11, and 17. Ans. 2-3. In support, the Examiner "construes the confidence limit to be associated with the determination of a known player or anonymous player profile and that the determination is a separate calculation of operation used in the determination of a separate account or player identifying operation." Final Act. 2 ( citing Spec. ,r,r 7, 8, 71 ). 3 Appeal2017-005648 Application 13/306,911 Appellants submit that "the player tracking system associates biometric data with a player profile and assigns the biometric data a confidence level," wherein "[t]he confidence level indicates how likely it is that the biometric data is actually associated with the player linked to that player profile." Br. 18. Appellants rely on paragraph 73 of the Specification for disclosing a detailed example of determining whether a confidence level associated with a detected fingerprint exceeds a designated confidence level separate from and in addition to any determination to associate any detected fingerprint with any existing player profile . . . . The confidence level isn't used to initially associate the fingerprint with the player profile, and is only called on to determine whether to attribute gaming activity to that player profile. Id. at 18-19. Regarding paragraph 73 of the Specification, the Examiner finds that the disclosed 70% represents a measure of loyalty points ( or an attribution threshold), and not a designated confidence level. Ans. 3. The Examiner also finds that the claims require a comparison between two confidence levels, and not a comparison between a confidence level and a percentage of the apportionment of points. Id. at 3. To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The issue of whether the written description requirement has been satisfied is a question of fact. Wang Labs, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 865 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 4 Appeal2017-005648 Application 13/306,911 Paragraph 73 of the Specification discloses that where a confidence level is insufficient or is possibly split between two or more possibilities, then the appropriate loyalty points or other form of activity credit can be suitably split among the appropriate player accounts. For instance, where the system identifies a particular gaming session and attributes that gaming session at a 50% confidence level to one player and at a 50% confidence level to another different player, then half of the loyalty points might be given to one player account and the other half might be given to the other player account. In other instances, one account might be given 70% of the appropriate loyalty points for a session. Another account might be given 30% of the points or credit for that session, or no credit balance may be applied at all if 30% is below the threshold at which credit may be awarded for a given establishment. Spec. ,r 73; see also id. ,r 61 ("fingerprints or other biometrics"), ,r 72 ("Where a confidence level for a given biometric is sufficiently high, then that biometric can be positively associated with a player."). We determine that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude from paragraph 73 of the Specification that the identified confidence level is associated with a detected fingerprint and is also the same as ( or corresponds to) the percentage of loyalty points available for distribution. In other words, the confidence level associated with the fingerprint (i.e., 30%) is compared against a threshold (i.e., a designated confidence level) to determine whether loyalty points are credited by a particular establishment, which is a determination that is separate from, and in addition to, a determination to associate a fingerprint with an existing player profile, as claimed. 5 Appeal2017-005648 Application 13/306,911 Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 17, and depending claims 5-10, 12-16, and 18-20. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 5-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph is REVERSED. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation