Ex Parte King

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 3, 2016

12916373 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/916,373 10/29/2010
66880 7590 02/05/2016
STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP
2121 AVENUE OF THE STARS
SUITE 2800
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Marcus King
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.
83336.1899 I BALLY-2018 9487
EXAMINER
YEN,JASONTAHAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/05/2016 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):
ccipdocketing@steptoe.com
ktuszynski@steptoe.com
Marv.Hein@scientificgames.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARCUS KING
Appeal2014-001010
Application 12/916,373 1
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES J. MAYBERRY, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
ST AI CO VICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Marcus King (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Bally Gaming
International, Inc. Appeal Br. 2 (filed Aug. 5, 2013).
Appeal2014-001010
Application 12/916,3 73
INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to a gaming system and method for
playing a progressive game. Spec., para. 8.
Claims 1, 12, and 24 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A gaming system for playing a progressive game,
wherein the progressive game has an initial increment rate and
threshold limit, and each time the progressive game is played a
contribution is made to a progressive jackpot's current value,
the system comprising: a display screen for displaying a gaming
presentation; one or more player-activated buttons for receiving
player input; and a processor, wherein the processor executes
game software and processes input from the player-activated
buttons; wherein each contribution increases the current value
until the jackpot reaches the threshold limit, wherein once the
threshold limit has been reached, the progressive jackpot uses a
secondary increment, to speed up, slow down, or stop the
amount contributed to the progressive jackpot, and wherein the
progressive jackpot's current value is reset to a reset value,
when a jackpot is won by a player; and wherein the progressive
game implements a hidden increment that channels
contributions to an overflow amount after the threshold limit
has been reached, and wherein the progressive game is
configured to increase a next starting jackpot amount to more
than the reset value after a next jackpot win by adding the
overflow amount to the reset value, thereby encouraging more
game play.
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-15, 17-22, and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yoseloff (US
2
Appeal2014-001010
Application 12/916,3 73
2008/0287185 Al, pub. Nov. 20, 2008) and Olsen (US
2005/0239542 Al, pub. Oct. 27, 2005).2
II. The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yoseloff, Olsen, and Nicely (US
2009/0088244 Al, pub. Apr. 2, 2009).
III. The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yoseloff, Olsen, and Brune (US
2011/0118010 Al, pub. May 19, 2011).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Each of independent claims 1, 12, and 24, requires inter alia,
channeling contributions to an overflow amount, and after a player wins a
jackpot amount, adding to a reset value of the jackpot amount the overflow
amount to increase the next starting jackpot amount to more than the reset
value. See Appeal Br. 9-12.
The Examiner finds that Y oseloff discloses:
wherein the progressive jackpot's current
value is reset to a reset value, when a jackpot is
won by a player (Fig 1, i-fi-1 0016, 0024; jackpot is
reset to a reseed amount after a winning event
occurs that pays 100% of the jackpot, in addition,
the operator selects the reset value during the set
up stage); and
2 We consider the Examiner's omission of claim 24 in the heading of
this rejection a mere typographical error because claim 24 is referenced in
the body of the rejection. See Final Act. 3.
3
Appeal2014-001010
Application 12/916,3 73
wherein the progressive game implements a
hidden increment that channels contributions to an
overflow amount after the threshold limit has been
reached (Fig 1, i-fi-10012, 0016, 0022, 0024; the
reseed rate is used to generate the seed amount in a
hidden meter, the seed amount is transferred from
the hidden meter to the progressive meter; for
example, with a threshold of $50,000, each time a
wager is made, a portion is calculated and
transferred to the hidden meter even after the
threshold is reached), and
wherein the progressive game is configured
to increase a next starting jackpot amount to more
than the reset value after a next jackpot win by
adding the overflow amount to the reset value,
thereby encouraging more game play (i-fi-f 0016,
0022; the reset amount varies with the wager
amount and could be larger than the reseed amount
after a period of game play such that the additional
amount is added to the reset amount; for example,
a reseed amount of $50,000 with 0.0615 reed rate,
the reset amount can be larger than the reseed
amount when the wager amount is larger than
$813,008, i.e. when wager amount is $1,000,000,
the reset amount is $61,500, which equals to
$50,000 plus $11,500).
Final Act. 3--4 (mailed Jan. 3, 2013).
Appellant argues that Y oseloff fails to disclose "a next starting
jackpot amount which is higher than a reset amount for a particular gaming
system." Appeal Br. 7. According to Appellant, Y oseloff s reseed amount
is preselected and "the reset amount of $61,500 quoted in the Examiner's
Answer is based upon math which is neither disclosed nor suggested in the
Y oseloff reference." Reply Br. 5.
4
Appeal2014-001010
Application 12/916,3 73
Y oseloff discloses a progressive jackpot game in which a jackpot
amount "increases in value for every progressive wager until a predefined
winning event occurs." Yoseloff, ,-r2. In Yoseloff s game, part of a player's
wager constitutes a contribution amount, which is placed in a jackpot
account, and another part is a reseed contribution, which is allocated for
reseeding the jackpot amount after a winning event occurs that pays 100% of
the jackpot. Id., iii! 11-13 and 16. With respect to the reseed contribution,
Y oseloff discloses a hidden meter that increments a predetermined amount
and when the jackpot is paid out, the accumulated reseed money is merely
transferred to form the next jackpot amount. Id., ii 22. Yoseloff further
discloses that the reseed amount is preselected by either the operator of the
game or a mathematical algorithm. Id., iii! 23-24 and 27.
As such, in contrast to the Examiner's position that "the reset amount
varies with the wager amount," Y oseloff specifically discloses that the
reseed amount is a fixed amount that is preselected by the operator or a
mathematical algorithm. See Ans. 5. Hence, Appellant is correct in that
Y oseloff s reseed rate is based on the preselected reseed amount and the
probability of a winning event paying the entire progressive jackpot. See
Appeal Br. 7. Although we appreciate the Examiner's example that a
$1,000,000 wager having a 0.0615 reseed rate would result in a reseed
contribution of $61,500, we note that the reseed rate in the Examiner's
calculation is based on a preselected reseed amount of $50,000. 3 Therefore,
3 For example, if an operator selects a reseed amount of $50,000 for a
game with the probability of a winning event paying the entire progressive
jackpot of 0.00000123, the reseed rate is calculated by multiplying the
5
Appeal2014-001010
Application 12/916,3 73
it is not clear then how the Examiner proposes to modify the preselected
reseed amount from $50,000 to $61,500. In other words, in the Examiner's
example, it does not necessarily mean that the entire amount of $61,500
constitutes the next jackpot amount as the Examiner suggests. Such an
interpretation requires speculation on the Examiner's part because Yoseloff
specifically discloses that the reseed amount is preselected by the operator of
the game or a mathematical algorithm. Y oseloff, i-f 24. Speculation and
conjecture cannot form the basis for concluding obviousness. See In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). We thus agree with Appellant
that Yoseloff fails to disclose that the next jackpot amount is higher than the
previous paid out jackpot amount, as called for by each of independent
claims 1, 12, and 24. See Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner's use of the disclosure of Olsen does not remedy the
deficiencies of Y oseloff as described supra. See Final Act. 4--5. Therefore,
for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-
10, 12-15, 17-22, and 24 over the combined teachings of Yoseloff and
Olsen.
Rejections II and III
The Examiner's use of the disclosures of Nicely and Brune fail to
remedy the deficiencies of Y oseloff as described supra. See Final Act. 4--9.
Accordingly, for the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 4 and 16 as unpatentable over Yoseloff,
reseed amount with the probability resulting in a reseed rate of 0.0615. See
Y oseloff, ,-r 16.
6
Appeal2014-001010
Application 12/916,3 73
Olsen, and Nicely and of claims 11 and 23 as unpatentable over Y oseloff,
Olsen, and Brune.
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-24 is reversed.
REVERSED
7