Ex Parte Mattice et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201611218688 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111218,688 0910212005 16629 7590 03/01/2016 Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP (IGT - Foley) Two North LaSalle Street Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60602-3801 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Harold Mattice 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. 100598-0263 9891 EXAMINER LEICHLITER, CHASE E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3714 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2016 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): patents@IGT.com amasia@ngelaw.com patents@ngelaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HAROLD MATTICE, CHRIS GADDA, CHAN GRISWOLD, RICHARD WILDER, and RICKY LEW Appeal2013-005083 Application 11/218,688 Technology Center 3700 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, andLISAM. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1-26, 42--48, 50, and 51. Appeal Br. 3. Claims 27--41 and 49 were withdrawn. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal2013-005083 Application 11/218,688 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 42, and 50 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A gaming machine adapted for accepting a wager, playing a primary game based on the wager and granting a payout based on a result of the game, the gaming machine compnsmg: an input device configured to receive player input for playing the primary game; a value input mechanism; a value output mechanism; a gaming controller configured to control play of the pnmary game; an inner video display including a viewing surface, the viewing surface having a boundary; and a rotatable object having at least a rotatable physical portion, the rotatable object exposing at least a portion of the viewing surface for viewing by a player, the rotatable object having an axis of rotation intersecting the viewing surface within the boundary of the viewing surface, the rotatable physical portion of the rotatable object configured to rotate about the axis of rotation. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 4---6, 8-13, 20-26, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Baerlocher (US 6,336,863 Bl; iss. Jan. 8, 2002). Claims 14, 17-19, and 42--48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baerlocher and Dunaevsky (US 2003/0195034 Al; pub. Oct. 16, 2003). Claims 2, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baerlocher and D' Avanzo (US 7,559,840 Bl; iss. July 14, 2009). 2 Appeal2013-005083 Application 11/218,688 Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baerlocher, Dunaevsky, and Naughton (US 6,344,861 Bl, iss. Feb. 5, 2002). Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baerlocher and Enomoto (JP 2004-147776A, May 27, 2004). ANALYSIS Claims 1, 4-6, 8-13, 20--26, and 50 as anticipated by Baerlocher Appellants argue claims 1, 4---6, 8-13, 20-26, and 50 as a group. See Appeal Br. 7-13. We select claim 1 as representative and claims 4---6, 8-13, 20-26, and 50 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). Regarding claim 1, the Examiner found that Baerlocher discloses a gaming machine with value input and value output mechanisms, controller, inner video display (simulated bonus wheel 34), and rotatable object (bonus selector 36). Ans. 3--4. The Examiner found that Baerlocher teaches bonus award display (wheel 34) may be mechanical or a video display; as claimed; and bonus selector 36 is a rotating pointer with a physical portion. Id. at 4. The Examiner also found that Baerlocher teaches that any of main payout display 32, bonus wheel 34, and bonus selector 36 may be real or may be simulated as a video display. Id. at 15-19. Appellants argue that claim 1 recites a hybrid wheel display that combines the excitement of a rotatable mechanical wheel or other moving component with the flexibility of a video display. Appeal Br. 9. Appellants also argue that Baerlocher discloses that the main payout display and bonus award display may be either simulated (e.g., an LCD or CRT video display) or real (e.g., mechanical items such as physical reels), but does not disclose all of the elements recited in claim 1. Id. at 10-12. 3 Appeal2013-005083 Application 11/218,688 Appellants also argue that Figure 1 of Baerlocher discloses bonus award display with a physical wheel 34 and a physical bonus selector 36, and it is unclear how a skilled artisan would modify the bonus award display to make the physical bonus wheel 34 a simulated bonus wheel while keeping bonus selector 36 physical. Reply Br. 5-6. Appellants further argue that Baerlocher teaches that the entire main display or the entire bonus display may be real or simulated but does not teach that parts of either display may be an undisclosed amalgamation of real and simulated components. Id. at 6. The Examiner's findings that Baerlocher discloses an inner video display as bonus wheel 34 and a rotatable physical object as bonus selector 36 are supported by a preponderance of evidence. Baerlocher teaches bonus wheel 34, bonus selector 36, and main payout display 32 can be "real" or "simulated." Baerlocher, 3:7-8. Baerlocher teaches that the bonus award display, which includes the bonus wheel 34 and bonus selector 36, can be any mechanical means or can be "simulated" as a video display. Id. at 3 :24-- 30. Baerlocher also discloses that the bonus selector 36 is a mechanical, movable pointer, as claimed. See id. at 3: 13-14. The Examiner reasonably found that these disclosures indicate that any of the main payout display 32, bonus wheel 34, and/or bonus selector 36 may be simulated (i.e., a video display such as a cathode rate tube or liquid crystal display) or real (i.e., a physical, mechanical entity). See Ans. 16-17, 18-19. Baerlocher discloses that the main payout display and the bonus award display can be real (reels, wheels, pointers) or simulated (CR Ts, LCDs ), or some combination of real and simulated displays. Baerlocher, 4:28-32. These teachings indicate that real physical components may be combined with simulated video displays. We thus sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4--6, 8-13, 20-26, and 50. 4 Appeal2013-005083 Application 11/218,688 Claims 14, 17-19, and 42--48 as unpatentable over Baerlocher, Dunaevsky Appellants argue that claims 14 and 17-19 depend from claim 1 and include all of the limitations of claim 1 and therefore are patentable for the same reason as claim 1. Appeal Br. 14. This argument is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above for the rejection of claim 1, which we sustain. We thus sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 17-19. Claim 42 Independent claim 42 recites a gaming system comprising a server configured for sending and receiving data and one or more gaming machines that are configured to communicate with the server and that comprise similar features as recited in claim 1. The Examiner relied on Baerlocher to disclose features of the one or more gaming machine, as for claim 1, and Dunaevsky to disclose a server. Ans. 9-10. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to combine these teachings to increase casino interest by storing gaming data. Id. at 10. Appellants argue that claim 42 includes elements similar to those in claims 1 and 50, and that Baerlocher does not disclose those features for the same reasons as claim 1. Appeal Br. 13-14. Appellants further argue that Dunaevsky does not cure the deficiencies of Baerlocher for claims 1 and 501 so Baerlocher and Dunaevsky do not disclose or suggest all the elements of claim 42. Id. at 14. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above for claim 1. We thus sustain the rejection of claim 42. 1 Appellants argue that claim 50 recites features similar to those of claim 1 and the rejection of claim 50 is in error for the same reasons as claim 1. Appeal Br. 12. 5 Appeal2013-005083 Application 11/218,688 Claim 43 Claim 43 depends from claim 42 and recites that "the at least one gaming machine is configured to receive the data from the server, wherein the data is related to reconfiguring the inner video display." The Examiner relied on Dunaevsky to teach this feature. Ans. 10. The Examiner found that Dunaevsky discloses that the various positions of the reels and wheels of a game are changed from outcome to outcome and reconfigured. Id. at 23. The Examiner also found that Dunaevsky may be carried out on any computer platform, including linked-gaming machines and a server where an award amount and down arrows on a bonus wheel can be reconfigured. Id. Appellants argue that there is no teaching in Dunaevsky that a gaming machine is configured to receive data from a server to reconfigure the inner video display, as claimed. Appeal Br. 15. Appellants argue that Dunaevsky appears to suggest that a remote server may determine the positions of reels and wheels to display a game outcome on a gaming machine but there is no "reconfiguration" involved because only the outcome would change. Id. at 16. Appellants also argue that changing the positions of a wheel to display a game outcome during ordinary play does not reconfigure the inner video display to display new values as claimed. Reply Br. 7-8. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. Dunaevsky discloses the reconfiguration of the video display as the Examiner found. In particular, Dunaevsky discloses that award amounts and number of down arrows may be adjusted on bonus wheels 44, and the number and configuration of the bonus wheels may be adjusted. Dunaevsky i-fi-131-32. We find that these changes would reconfigure the way that a game is displayed and played, rather than merely displaying different outcomes as a game is played. 6 Appeal2013-005083 Application 11/218,688 Dunaevsky also discloses that the invention can be implemented on any type of computer platform including linked-gaming machines and a remote server that allows control and memory functions to be carried out using shared resources in one or more computers. Id. i-fi-119, 22. We find that Dunaevsky thus discloses a server configured to send and receive data for game play to remote gaming devices, which would include the gaming machine of Baerlocher in the Examiner's proposed combination. Ans. 10. Appellants disclose that the inner video display is reconfigurable to allow the information displayed on the device to be varied. Spec. ,-r 31. Appellants also disclose that "images may be varied during the course of the play of a game of chance or a bonus game" and players or casino operators can reconfigure the information displayed on the inner video display to suit their needs or preferences. Id. ,-r 32. Dunaevsky discloses that video images may be varied during game play (Dunaevsky ,-r 38) as the Examiner found and Appellants acknowledge. Ans. 23 (position of the wheel can be changed from outcome to outcome or reconfigured); Reply Br. 7. Dunaevsky also discloses that the format of a game can be reconfigured by changing award amounts, the number of down arrows 49 on bonus wheels, and the number and form of bonus wheels 44 to adjust the probabilities of obtaining various awards (Dunaevsky i-fi-1 31, 32), as the Examiner found and Appellants acknowledge. Ans. 23; Reply Br. 8 (Dunaevsky teaches that different award probabilities and embodiments are easily tailored by adjusting award amounts and down arrows on bonus wheel and wheel display design may be tailored to a particular application by adjusting certain parameters). We thus sustain the rejection of claim 43. 7 Appeal2013-005083 Application 11/218,688 Appellants further argue that claims 44--48 depend from claim 42 and include all the elements of claim 42 and therefore are patentable for the same reasons as claim 42. Id. This argument is not persuasive in view of our decision to sustain the rejection of claim 42. Claims 2, 3, and 7 as unpatentable over Baerlocher, D 'Avanzo Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 7 be withdrawn because the Examiner's reliance on D' Avanzo does not cure the deficiencies of Baerlocher as to claim 1, from which claims 2 and 7 depend. Appeal Br. 13. This argument is not persuasive because we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We thus sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 7. Regarding claim 3, the Examiner found that D 'A vanzo teaches a rotatable bonus game that is electronically switchable from a transparent state to a non-transparent state, as claimed, so that when the display is not on there is no light to pass through the transparent mirror or reflective squares and the images therefore are not transparent. Ans. 12-13. The Examiner found that D 'A vanzo discloses inner and outer spheres that are electronically aligned by a motor so that the outer sphere's mirrored squares are in a non- transparent state where no light is passing through. Id. at 25. Appellants argue that their Specification discloses a transparent cover 450 of rotatable object 430 can use suspended particle technology to be non- transparent based on whether electricity is applied to cover 450. Appeal Br. 17 (citing Spec. 32:22-25). Appellants argue that the D' Avanzo discloses a dual chamber disco ball the transparency properties of which do not change at all when light or displays are turned on or off. Id. at 17-18. Appellants also argue that the transparency of the mirrored squares remains unaffected by the electronic alignment of the spheres. Reply Br. 9. We agree. 8 Appeal2013-005083 Application 11/218,688 The Examiner has not established that D'Avanzo teaches a rotatable object that is electronically switchable from a transparent state to a non- transparent state, as recited in claim 3. D' A vanzo teaches a dual chamber disco ball in which inner chamber 320 includes squares 330 with LEDs or light bulbs and outer chamber 310 has squares 350 that can be illuminated by the LEDs or light bulbs of inner chamber 320 when outer squares 350 are aligned with inner squares 330. D' Avanzo, 5:25--41; see Ans. 12-13. The Examiner's finding that this disclosure teaches a non-transparent portion that is changed to a transparent portion is unreasonably broad and inconsistent with Appellants' Specification and the claim language. The transparency characteristics of the outer squares 350 do not change when illuminated by light from inner squares 330. Rather, the transparency characteristics of the outer squares 350 allow information on the outer squares 350 to be seen when outer squares 350 are illuminated. See D'Avanzo, 5:32--47. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 3. Claims 15 and 16 as unpatentable over Baerlocher, Dunaevsky, Naughton Claim 15 depends from claim 1 and recites the touchscreen sensor (of claim 14) "is configured to detect one or more inputs that allow the player to effect a rate of rotation for the rotatable object." The Examiner found that Baerlocher and Dunaevsky teach a touch screen and Naughton teaches a touch screen sensor that detects player input(s) to effect a rate of rotation for "the rotatable object." Ans. 13-14. The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to modify Baerlocher and Dunaevsky with this teaching to have a more realistic feel of spinning a touch screen wheel. Id. at 14. The Examiner also determined a touch screen sensor would provide a realistic feel to control a real or simulated bonus wheel with precision. Id. at 26. 9 Appeal2013-005083 Application 11/218,688 Appellants argue that Naughton discloses a touch screen sensor that allows a player to effect a rate of rotation of a virtual wheel, rather than a "rotatable object having at least a rotatable physical portion," as claimed. Appeal Br. 19; Reply Br. 10. Appellants argue that the Examiner's reason makes no sense in the context of the claimed rotatable object with a rotatable physical portion because nothing would be more realistic than touching the rotatable physical portion to control it, so using a touch screen to rotate the physical object would make the experience less realistic. Reply Br. 10. The Examiner's finding that Naughton teaches a touch screen sensor that detects player inputs to effect a rate of rotation of "the rotatable object" (Ans. 14) is not supported by a preponderance of evidence. Naughton uses a touch screen sensor to control the rate of rotation of an object wheel 38 on a display screen 37 to give a user the feeling that a real wheel is being spun. Naughton, 15: 12-33; Figs. 12, 13. Naughton does not teach a sensor used to control the rate of rotation of a rotatable object having a physical portion, as claimed. The Examiner has not explained why a skilled artisan would have been motivated to use Naughton's sensor with Baerlocher when Baerlocher already has a rotatable object with a physical portion, as claimed, and does not need to simulate the feeling of rotating a real wheel. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 15 or claim 16, which depends from claim 15. Claim 51 as unpatentable over Baerlocher, Enomoto Appellants argue that Enomoto teaches features of claim 51 and does not remedy the deficiencies of Baerlocher for claim 1, from which claim 51 depends. Appeal Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 11. Because we sustain the rejection of claim 1 based on Baerlocher, there are no deficiencies for Enomoto to cure and we sustain the rejection of claim 51. 10 Appeal2013-005083 Application 11/218,688 DECISION We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--14, 17-26, 42--48, 50, and 51 and reverse the rejections of claims 3, 15, and 16. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRM-IN-PART 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation