Ex Parte Moshal

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 29, 2012

10576743 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/576,743 01/09/2007 John Hillel Moshal 06-278 8207
20306 7590 02/29/2012
MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
300 S. WACKER DRIVE
32ND FLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
LIM, SENG HENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3717
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/29/2012 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 JOHN HILLEL MOSHAL
____________

Appeal 2010-002434
Application 10/576,743
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002434
Application 10/576,743

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the
final rejection of claims 26-40 which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a gaming system
(Spec. 1:9-11). Claim 26, reproduced below with the numbering in brackets
added, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.

26. A gaming system comprising:
at least one player station for displaying to a player a simulation
of a game of chance;
a primary gaming server located remotely from the at least one
player station and communicable with the at least one player station
via a communication network, wherein
the primary gaming server is configured to provide outcomes for the
game of chance upon request from the at least one player station;
a secondary gaming server located remotely from the at least
one player station and communicable with the at least one player
station via the communication network, wherein the secondary
gaming server is configured to provide outcomes for the game of
chance upon request from the at least one player station;
[1] a watchdog facility configured (i) to transmit a data packet
to the primary gaming server at regular intervals and (ii) whenever an
expected response is not received from the primary gaming server
within a predetermined time interval, to change a status of the
primary gaming server from active to failed; [2] and
a controller in the at least one player station for routing a
request to provide an outcome of a turn of the game of chance,
Appeal 2010-002434
Application 10/576,743

3
wherein the controller routes the request to the primary gaming server
when the status of the primary gaming server is active and routes the
request to the secondary gaming server when the status of the primary
gaming server is failed.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Holch US 5,674,128 Oct. 7, 1997
Coile US 6,108,300 Aug. 22, 2000
Duncombe US 2003/0120685 A1 Jun. 26, 2003

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 26-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Coile and Holch.
2. Claims 33 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Coile, Holch, Duncombe.

THE ISSUES
With regards to the rejection of claim 26, the issue turns on whether
Coile discloses the claim limitation [1] cited above.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are supported
at least by a preponderance of the evidence:1

1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2010-002434
Application 10/576,743

4
FF1. Coile has disclosed a system and method for transferring a network
function from a primary network to a backup network device. (Abstract).
FF2. Coile at Col. 2:50-3:2 does not disclose: a watchdog facility
configured (i) to transmit a data packet to the primary gaming server at
regular intervals and (ii) whenever an expected response is not received from
the primary gaming server within a predetermined time interval, to change a
status of the primary gaming server from active to failed.

ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 26 is improper
because Coile fails to disclose claim limitation [1] (Br. 9-10, Reply Br. 2-4).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that Coile discloses claim
limitation [1] at Col. 2:50-3:2 (Ans. 3-4, 6-7).
We agree with the Appellant. Claim limitation [1] requires:
[1] a watchdog facility configured (i) to transmit a data packet to the
primary gaming server at regular intervals and (ii) whenever an
expected response is not received from the primary gaming server
within a predetermined time interval, to change a status of the
primary gaming server from active to failed. (Claim 26).
Thus the cited claim limitation requires in part that the watchdog
facility is configured to transmit a data packet in regular intervals and when
an expected response is not received in a predetermined time interval to
change the status from active to failed in some manner. Coile at the portions
cited by the Examiner does not disclose this (FF2). While Coile at Col.
2:50-3:2 does disclose that system “requires the client to sense failure” and
that “it is necessary that the client be able to detect failure” it is not
specifically disclosed how this failure is detected, which could be detected in
a variety of ways for example such a signal sent by the server alone or a by a
Appeal 2010-002434
Application 10/576,743

5
power loss detection signal of some kind and the specific manner of
detection required in claim limitation [1] has not been shown in the cited
portion of the reference. For these above reasons the rejection of claim 26
and its dependent claims is not sustained. Claim 34 contains a similar claim
limitation and the rejection of that claim and its dependent claims is not
sustained for these same reasons.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 26-40 as listed in the Rejection section above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 26-40 is reversed.

REVERSED

MP