Ex Parte Loose

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 27, 2012

10366948 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 27, 2012)

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.
10/366,948 02/14/2003 Timothy C. Loose 247079-000167USPT 3165
70243 7590 04/27/2012
NIXON PEABODY LLP
300 S. Riverside Plaza
16th Floor
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
MCCULLOCH JR, WILLIAM H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3714
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2012 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 TIMOTHY C. LOOSE
____________

Appeal 2010-004479
Application 10/366,948
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and
GAY ANN SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Timothy C. Loose (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4-10, 12, 13, 15-29, 31, 33,
and 34. Appellant cancelled claims 2, 3, 11, 14, 30, and 32. The Examiner
withdrew claims 35 and 36 from consideration. Appellant’s representative

Appeal 2010-004479
Application 10/366,948

2
presented oral argument on April 17, 2012. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

The Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter is directed to a gaming machine and a
method of operating a gaming machine, wherein the “gaming machine ha[s]
a control architecture for producing an enhanced audio experience for
players of the gaming machine.” Spec. 2. Claim 13, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
13. A gaming machine, comprising:
a main control module including a main
processor and a memory device, said memory
device for storing operating instructions for said
gaming machine, said main processor for
randomly selecting one of a plurality of outcomes
of said gaming machine in response to a wager
amount, said main control module producing a
high-level instruction that controls an audio output
from said gaming machine;
an audio control module separate and
distinct from said main control module, said audio
control module including an audio processor that
receives said high-level instruction and an audio
memory device for storing audio data sets, said
audio processor accessing and processing at least
one of said audio data sets in response to receiving
said high-level instruction from said main control
module, said audio processor producing output
audio signals corresponding to said audio output;
and
an audio speaker system for broadcasting
said audio output.

Appeal 2010-004479
Application 10/366,948

3
The Rejections
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review.
Claims 13, 16-18, and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Hecht (US 6,848,996 B2, issued Feb. 1, 2005). Ans. 3-7.
Claims 1, 4-10, 12, 31, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hecht and Creative Technology Ltd.’s User’s
Guide SB16 PCI (hereinafter “SB16”, dated March 2000).1 Ans. 7-11, 12-
13, and 13-14.
Claims 15, 19, 20, and 242 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hecht. Ans. 12 and 13.

OPINION
Anticipation based on Hecht
The Examiner interprets Hecht as anticipating independent claims 13
and 27. Ans. 3-5 and 7. In particular, the Examiner finds that Hecht

1 Although the Examiner set forth a rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hecht, SB16, and Admitted Prior Art from
Appellant’s lack of challenge of the Examiner’s Official Notice (see Ans.
12-13) and a rejection of claims 8 and 33-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hecht, SB16, and Admitted Prior Art from Appellant’s
lack of challenge of the Examiner’s Official Notice (see Ans. 13-14) in
separate grounds of rejection from the rejection of claims 1, 4-7, 10, 12, and
31 (see Ans. 7-11), we have consolidated the three rejections as all being
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hecht and SB16.
2 Although the Examiner set forth the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hecht and Admitted Prior Art from
Appellant’s lack of challenge of the Examiner’s Official Notice (see Ans.
13) as a separate ground of rejection from the rejection of claims 15, 19, and
20 (see Ans. 12), we have consolidated the two rejections as both are under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hecht.
Appeal 2010-004479
Application 10/366,948

4
discloses an audio control module (sound card 106) separate and distinct
from the main control module, and including an audio processor (sound
processor 116, mixer 118, and/or digital to analog converter 120) which
receives the high-level instruction and an audio memory device (sound
RAM 112) for storing audio data sets (sound files 114a, 114b, 114c). Ans.
4. In the Examiner’s view, Hecht’s audio processor 116 accesses and
processes at least one of the audio data sets 114a, 114b, 114c on the sound
card 106 in response to receiving the high-level instruction from the main
control module and also produces output audio signals corresponding to the
audio output, because Hecht’s main control module “issues instructions to
control the sound to be played,” e.g., “the CPU 102 causes specific sounds to
be output or changed in response to sound causing events taking place (see
at least 6:56-7[:]65).” Id. The Examiner also finds that “Hecht’s sound
processor 116 gains access to sound files 114a-114c and processes them, as
is evident at least because sound files may be digital wave files (see at least
6:10-23), which must be at least converted to an analog audio signal in order
to be output by the speakers 36.” Ans. 4-5.
Appellant disputes that Hecht anticipates independent claims 13 and
27, because Appellant contends that Hecht’s sound processor 116 does not
access and process the sound files 114 on sound card 106. App. Br. 19 and
21. Rather, Appellant argues Hecht’s statement that the “[s]ound files 114
can include any type of sound file readable by the CPU 102” (see col. 6, ll.
12-13) means that Hecht “only teaches that the CPU 102 accesses the audio
data sets 114.” App. Br. 19. Appellant also points to Hecht’s column 6,
lines 19-24, and contends that Hecht teaches that the sound processor 16
only functions to drive the mixer and the A/D converter to vary the volume,
Appeal 2010-004479
Application 10/366,948

5
but does not indicate that the sound processor 116 accesses and processes
the sound files 114 in response to receiving a high-level instruction from
Hecht’s main CPU 102. Id.
Hecht discloses a gaming device 10 which includes a sound system
100 having a central processing unit (CPU) 102, a memory or data storage
device 104 for storing program code or other data, and a sound card 106.
Col. 6, ll. 1-4 and Fig. 2. The sound card 106 includes sound random access
memory (RAM) 112 having a plurality of sound files 114a, 114b, 114c, a
sound processor 116, a mixer 118, and an analog to digital (A/D) converter
120. Col. 6, ll. 10-23 and Fig. 2. The sound processor 116 drives the mixer
118 and A/D converter 120 thereby causing the speaker 36 to generate sound
and the mixer 118 enables the sound processor 116 to vary the volume of the
sound recordings. Col. 6, ll. 19-23.
In use, a player of Hecht’s gaming device 10 can make decisions and
input signals into the gaming device 10. Col. 6, ll. 40-42. When a player
generates an input signal with a player input device, a player input event
occurs. Col. 6, ll. 42-45. When the CPU 102 reads the player input events,
the CPU 102 causes certain sound changes. Col. 6, ll. 45-46.
In addition to communicating with the sound card 106, Hecht’s CPU
102 communicates with the data storage device 104 having game read only
memory (ROM) 128 and game random access memory (RAM) 130. Col. 6,
ll. 50-54. Game ROM 128 includes sound change code 136 and sound
change code 136 has instructions which direct the CPU 102 how to generate,
store, interpret, and use the data stored in sound change random access
memory (RAM) 138. Col. 6, l. 55 through col. 7, line 2. More specifically,
sound change code 136 includes instructions which direct the CPU 102 to:
Appeal 2010-004479
Application 10/366,948

6
(1) play a primary sound recording when a predetermined game event or
input event occurs; (2) play a variant sound recording when a player makes
one of a plurality of predetermined inputs; and (3) stop the primary sound
recording. Col. 7, ll. 2-7.
In view of Hecht’s disclosure discussed supra, we agree with
Appellant because Hecht only expressly discloses that the sound processor
116 functions to drive a mixer 118 and an analog to digital converter 120
causing the speaker 36 to generate sound. See col. 6, ll. 19-23. However, it
appears that it is Hecht’s CPU 102 that is accessing and processing sound
files 114a, 114b, and 114c on sound card 102 because the “[s]ound files 114
can include any type of sound files readable by the CPU 102” as pointed out
by Appellant. See col. 6, ll. 12-13. Hecht’s disclosure, at column 6, line 66
through column 7, line 2, which states that “[s]ound change code 136
includes instructions which direct the CPU 102 how to generate, store,
interpret and use the data stored in sound change random access memory
(RAM) 138,” is especially telling evidence that it is the CPU 102 that is
accessing and processing the sound files 114a, 114b, and 114c on sound card
106 and not sound processor 116. Although the Examiner’s statement that
sound processors process sounds (at Ans. 16) may be true generally, all
evidence in Hecht points to the CPU 102 as the component that accesses and
processes the sound files 114a, 114b, and 114c on sound card 106.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claims 13 and 27, and claims 16-18, 21-26, 28 and 29
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Hecht.

Appeal 2010-004479
Application 10/366,948

7
Obviousness based on Hecht and SB16
Similar to independent claim 13, independent claim 1 is directed to a
gaming machine including a main control module and an audio control
module separate and distinct from the main control module. App. Br., Clms.
App’x. Claim 1’s audio control module includes an audio processor and a
memory device for storing audio data sets for the gaming machine. Id. The
audio control module receives high-level instructions from the main control
module and in response to receipt of the high-level instructions, the audio
processors access and process certain audio data sets to develop output audio
signals, including spatial development of said output audio signals. Id.
Independent claim 31 is directed to a method of operating a gaming
machine including the steps of, “in response to receiving said high-level
audio instructions at said audio control module, accessing with said digital
signal processor, said audio data from said audio memory device; and
processing said audio data.” Id.
The Examiner finds that Hecht substantially discloses the subject
matter of independent claims 1 and 31 in a manner similar to that discussed
supra with respect to independent claim 13 (Ans. 7-11), except Hecht “lacks
in explicitly teaching the feature of spatial development and using the audio
processor to control and direct audio energy from said audio output to a
specific location at a front of said gaming machine” (Ans. 9). Emphasis
omitted. The Examiner also finds that SB16 “describes a known sound card
providing localized three-dimensional sound immersion in two speaker
environments (see page 1), characterized as ‘Localized 3D sound technology
[that] expands the spaciousness of sounds in the traditional two speaker
system’ (see page 12).” Ans. 8-9. The Examiner concludes that it would
Appeal 2010-004479
Application 10/366,948

8
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to include the features
described in [SB16] in order to provide spacious sound over two speakers
while minimizing CPU utilization.” Ans. 10.
Appellant makes similar contentions to those discussed above with
respect to independent claim 13. App. Br. 13-14. Appellant also contends
that SB16 does not cure the deficiencies of Hecht because SB16 “does not
teach a sound card that, after receiving high-level instructions from the main
CPU, accesses audio data sets located on that SB16 sound card and
processes those audio data sets . . . [since] the SB16 reference does not have
any on-board memory that could perform this function of storing audio data
sets.” App. Br. 16.
For the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 13, we agree
with Appellant that Hecht fails to teach that it is the sound processor 116
that accesses and processes sound files 114a, 114b, and 114c on sound card
106, but rather Hecht indicates that the CPU 102 does the accessing and
processing of sound files 114a, 114b, and 114c. SB16 does not remedy this
deficiency. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 31, and claims 4-10, 12, 33, and 34 dependent
thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hecht and SB16.
Obviousness based on Hecht
Each of claims 15, 19, 20, and 24 is either directly or indirectly
dependent upon independent claim 13. App. Br., Clms. App’x. The
Examiner’s rejection of each of claims 15, 19, 20, and 24 relies on Official
Notice with respect to the additional subject matter of each individual claim
that has not been challenged by Appellant, but that does not cure Hecht’s
deficiency that it is the CPU 102, and not the sound processor 116, that
Appeal 2010-004479
Application 10/366,948

9
accesses and processes the sound files 114a, 114b, and 114c on the sound
card 106.
Thus, for the reasons discussed supra with respect to independent
claim 13, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15, 19, 20,
and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hecht.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4-10, 12, 13,
15-29, 31, 33, and 34.

REVERSED

Klh