Ex Parte Martin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 30, 2009

10400693 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte RICHARD L. MARTIN, EDWARD J. HOLE JR.,
ROBERT C. ANGELL, JOHN A. SANTINI JR.,
IAN MITCHELL, and DAVE WILLIAM COSTANTINO
__________

Appeal 2008-5609
Application 10/400,693
Technology Center 3700
__________

Decided: January 30, 2009
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and
LORA M. GREEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-64. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2008-5609
Application 10/400,693

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a cashless gaming system and method.
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and reads as follows:

1. A cashless gaming method for providing a plurality of games at a
plurality of player terminals coupled together, the method comprising:
receiving, at a player terminal, player identification information from
a player,
receiving, at the player terminal, game selection information from the
player indicating one of the plurality of games;
displaying a selected one of the games to the player at a video display
at the player terminal;
executing a software application program at the player terminal, said
software application program corresponding to the selected games, in
response to an externally-generated set of random numbers to determine a
result of the selected game independent of player participation at other
player terminals;
storing player account information for the player at a central controller
connected to each of the plurality of player terminals;
adjusting, at the central controller, the account information of the
player according to the result of the selected game from the player terminal;
and
storing game information corresponding to the plurality of player
terminals at a monitoring system remote from the central controller.

The Examiner relies on the following evidence:
Weiss US 5,611,730 Mar. 18, 1997
Walker US 6,001,016 Dec. 14, 1999

We reverse.

2
Appeal 2008-5609
Application 10/400,693

ISSUE
The Examiner finds that claims 1, 3-13, and 15-64 are anticipated by
Walker; and also concludes that claims 2 and 14 are obvious over the
combination of Walker and Weiss.
Appellants contend that Walker does not teach the step of “executing
a software application program at the player terminal, said software
application program corresponding to the selected games, in response to an
externally-generated set of random numbers to determine a result of the
selected game independent of player participation at other player terminals,”
as required by claim 1.
Thus, the issue on Appeal is: Has the Examiner established by a
preponderance of the evidence that Walker teaches a step of “executing a
software application program at the player terminal, said software
application program corresponding to the selected games, in response to an
externally-generated set of random numbers to determine a result of the
selected game independent of player participation at other player terminals”?

FINDINGS OF FACT
FF1 An object of the invention is “to provide a cashless gaming system
and method for providing a plurality of games at a plurality of player
terminals that do not accept coins or alternative items of value.” (Spec. 4
¶009.)
FF2 A player at a player terminal selects one of the games displayed on the
video display at the player terminal, and “[s]oftware application programs
corresponding to the plurality of games are executed at the player terminal in
3
Appeal 2008-5609
Application 10/400,693

response to an externally-generated set of random numbers to determine a
result of the selected game independent of player participation at other ones
of the player terminals.” (Id. at ¶010.)
FF3 Figure 2a is reproduced below.

Figure 2a is a block diagram of a player terminal (id. at 7 ¶018).
FF4 The player terminal 100 has controller 200, which is “a processor for
directing operation of player terminal 100 and player interface 202.” (Id. at
11 ¶035.)
FF5 “[G]ame player 204 comprises software applications running
electronic games of chance, such as lotto, keno, bingo, etc. These games
may be conventional video games of chance except that . . . they receive a
random number from the external game server 102 . . . and base a win/lose
result on that random number and the player’s selection.” (Id.)
4
Appeal 2008-5609
Application 10/400,693

FF6 Each of the player terminals 100 plays any one of several games
independently of the others (id.).
FF7 The player terminal may download game software from a central
control network, allowing the games to operate autonomously for a time if
the network goes down, and the game may be executed more quickly as the
player terminal 100 does not have to wait for information to be sent back
and forth to the central control network (id. at 10 ¶032).
FF8 The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-13, and 15-64 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Walker.
FF9 Walker is cited by the Examiner for teaching a “cashless gaming
method for providing a plurality of games at a plurality of terminals coupled
together.” (Ans. 3.)
FF10 As to the disputed claim limitation, the Examiner finds that Walker
discloses “executing a software application program, which corresponds to
the selected game, in response to externally generated set of random number
to determine a result of the selected game independent of player
participation at player terminal.” (Id. at 3-4 (citing Walker col. 2, ll. 60-65;
col. 10, ll. 30-48).)
FF11 The Examiner finds further with respect to the disputed limitation that
“Walker teaches . . .a CPU that initiates a RNG (random number generator)
to generate random numbers (col. 5:17-32), wherein the CPU looks up the
generated random number in a stored probability table and finds the
corresponding outcome.” (Ans. 8.)
FF12 Walker is drawn to a method and system for the remote playing of a
gaming device, such as a slot machine (Walker col. 3, ll. 40-42).
5
Appeal 2008-5609
Application 10/400,693

FF13 A player at a remote terminal enters play preferences that are sent to a
slot network server, wherein the server identifies outcome data from one or
more slot machines and then transmits the outcome to the remote terminal
(id. at ll. 42-48). The outcome may be a live outcome or may be historical
outcome data from previous plays (id. at ll. 49-51).
FF14 As to the portions of Walker relied upon by the Examiner, Walker
specifically teaches:
The present invention also includes a method including
the steps of receiving a play preference, generating outcome
data, automatically communicating the outcome data from the
gaming device to a server, selecting outcome data based upon
the play preference, and communicating the selected outcome
data to a remote wagering terminal.

(Id. at col. 2, ll. 60-65.)
FF15 Walker further teaches:
In step 990, the slot network server 4 proceeds to
transmit the live outcome data for those selected slot machines
2 to the remote wagering terminal 5 identified by the remote
wagering terminal ID number stored in the record of the session
database 446 for that remote player. In the present embodiment,
the remote wagering terminal 5 displays the outcome, such as
the reel positions (or card values for video poker machines) (as
stored in field 4467), as well as the payout information (as
stored in field 4468), if any. Moreover, the remote wagering
terminal 5 may display the reel positions one at a time, or all at
once. Furthermore, the remote wagering terminal 5 simulates
play of the selected slot machine 2 based upon the received live
outcome by generating a graphical display of spinning reels in
the same manner as a conventional slot machine 2. In alternate
embodiments employing gaming devices other than slot
machines 2, the remote wagering terminal 5 similarly simulates
6
Appeal 2008-5609
Application 10/400,693

play, such as the graphical dealing of cards or spinning of a
roulette wheel.

(Id. at col. 10, ll. 31-48.)
FF16 Finally, Walker teaches
With respect to a play of the slot machine 2, slot machine
2 operates in a conventional manner. The player starts the
machine by inserting a coin, or using electronic credit, and
activating a starting controller 250. Under control of a program
stored, for example, in a storage device 280 or the ROM 220,
the CPU 210 initiates the RNG 240 to generate a random
number; the CPU 210 looks up the generated random number in
a stored probability table 281 and finds the corresponding
outcome. Based on the identified outcome, the CPU 210
locates the appropriate payout in a stored payout table 284. The
CPU 210 also directs a reel controller 260 to spin reels 262,
264, 266 and to stop them at a point when they display a
combination of symbols corresponding to the selected payout.
When the player wins, the machine stores the credits in RAM
230 and displays them in video display area 270.

(Id. at col. 5, ll. 17-32.) The above teaching thus relates to the slot machine,
and not the remote terminal.
FF17 The Examiner also rejects claims 2 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over the combination of Walker and Weiss (Ans. 7).
FF18 The Examiner cites Weiss for its teaching of a disabling mechanism
that disables one or more player terminals automatically upon an even
condition, wherein the monitoring system is remote from the player terminal
(id.).

7
Appeal 2008-5609
Application 10/400,693

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
To anticipate, every element and limitation of the claimed invention
must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the claim.
Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2001).
“[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant’s specification.

In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Walker does not teach the step of “executing a
software application program at the player terminal, said software
application program corresponding to the selected games, in response to an
externally-generated set of random numbers to determine a result of the
selected game independent of player participation at other player terminals,”
as required by claim 1. (App. Br. 21.) Walker, Appellants assert, “teaches
transmitting either real time data or historical outcome data from one
wagering terminal (e.g., a slot machine) to a remote wagering terminal to
display the result of a game.” (Id.) According to Appellants, Walker
simply displays a previously determined result from another machine at the
8
Appeal 2008-5609
Application 10/400,693

remote terminal (id.). Thus, Appellants assert, “the result displayed in
Walker has already been determined at some time prior to transmitting the
data to the remote wagering terminal. There is no software application
executed at the remote wagering terminal in response to externally generated
random numbers used to determine the result of the selected game.” (Id.)
We find that Appellants have the better position. Claim 1 requires the
step of “executing a software application program at the player terminal,
said software application program corresponding to the selected games, in
response to an externally-generated set of random numbers to determine a
result of the selected game independent of player participation at other
player terminals.” In view of that Specification, we interpret that step as
requiring that the software application be deployed on the player terminal,
and not at a remote terminal, such that the game may be played
autonomously for a short time at the player terminal (see, e.g., FF3, FF5, and
FF7).
Walker teaches remote playing of a gaming device, wherein the
remote player terminal displays the outcome of a remote gaming device,
such as a slot machine (see, e.g., FF12, FF13, and FF15). Thus, the software
application for the slot machine is deployed at the remote gaming device,
and not the player terminal.
As to the remaining independent claims, i.e., claims 13, 25-27, 34, 41-
43, 53, 63, and 64, as noted by Appellants, those claims include similar
features as the one discussed above with respect to claim 1, and moreover,
the Examiner has not made additional findings of fact with respect to the
9
Appeal 2008-5609
Application 10/400,693

discussed limitation as to those claims. Moreover, as to the obviousness
rejection, Weiss does not remedy the deficiencies of Walker.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We find that the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of
the evidence that Walker teaches a step of “executing a software application
program at the player terminal, said software application program
corresponding to the selected games, in response to an externally-generated
set of random numbers to determine a result of the selected game
independent of player participation at other player terminals,” as required by
claim 1, and we therefore reverse the rejection as to that claims and the
claims dependent thereon.
As the remaining independent claims contain a similar limitation, and
as the Examiner has not made any additional fact finding as to why Walker
would read on that similar limitation, we are compelled to reverse the
anticipation rejection as to the remaining rejected claims. Thus, the rejection
of claims 1, 3-13, and 15-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Walker is reversed.

10
Appeal 2008-5609
Application 10/400,693

Moreover, as Weiss does not remedy the deficiencies of Walker, we
also reverse the rejection of claims 2 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of Walker and Weiss.

REVERSED

Ssc:

WMS GAMING
(DELIZIO GILLIAM)
C/O DELIZIO GILLIAM, PLLC
15201 MASON ROAD
SUITE 1000-312
CYPRESS, TX 77433

11