Ex Parte Moshal

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 8, 2011

10504313 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 8, 2011)

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.
10/504,313 03/16/2005 Martin Moshal 04-641 8815
20306 7590 03/09/2011
MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
300 S. WACKER DRIVE
32ND FLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
MOSSER, ROBERT E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3714
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2011 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 MARTIN MOSHAL
____________

Appeal 2009-009500
Application 10/504,313
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and
MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-009500
Application 10/504,313

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Martin Moshel (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 51-68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Walker (US 6,012,983, iss. Jan. 11, 2000) in view of
Alcorn (US 6,104,815, iss. Aug. 15, 2000). Claims 1-50 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
The Invention
The claims on appeal relate to a control system and method for
regulating the progress of a casino game.
Claim 51, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
51. A control system for a casino game,
comprising:
a gaming server programmed to generate
random events that determine outcomes of turns of
the casino game;
a computer workstation located remotely
from the gaming server and communicable with
the gaming server via a communication network,
the computer workstation programmed to perform
the steps of:
(i) receiving a configuration from a player of
the casino game, (ii) obtaining the random events
from the gaming server via the communication
network, and (iii) automatically controlling the
progress of the casino game in accordance with the
configuration and the random events without
further intervention from the player, the
configuration including a player-selected wager
and a player-selected plurality of consecutive turns
of the casino game to which the player-selected
wager is to be applied.

Appeal 2009-009500
Application 10/504,313

3
OPINION
Pertinent Facts
Walker is directed to a system for automated, repetitive play on a
gaming device, e.g., a slot machine. As shown in Figure 1, the system 1
includes multiple slot machines 2, a slot network server 4, and a player
communication device 6. Each slot machine 2 has a unique machine
identification (ID) number, and communicates with the slot network server 4
via the slot network 3. The slot machine 2 communicates player
identification information and parameter selections to the slot network server
4. In turn, the slot network server 4 communicates locking data to the slot
machine 2. The slot machine 2 communicates any generated messages and
outcome data to the slot network server 4, which, in turn, communicates the
information to the player communication device 6. The player
communication device 6 provides sufficient information to the player to
follow and enjoy the play, and in some cases to authorize necessary or
desired changes in the play. Col. 3, l. 53 to col. 4, l. 11.
Automated play initiation begins with authentication of a player with
a player tracking card at a slot machine 2. The funding of automated play
can occur one of two ways. The player can enter an amount of funds at the
slot machine 2. Or, the player can deposit an amount of funds at the casino
cage that is recorded to correspond to the player tracking card. Next, the
play parameters of the automated play are entered into system. This occurs
in one of two ways. The player enters the parameters at the slot machine 2.
Or, the parameters are received from an automated session database 446.
Once entered, the player parameters are transmitted to the slot network
server 4. The slot network server 4 stores the player parameters in RAM
Appeal 2009-009500
Application 10/504,313

4
430, in addition to storing a set of actual limiting values, limiting criteria.
Col. 7, l. 20 to col. 8, 61.
At the time of commencement of automated play, the slot network
server 4 transmits locking data to the slot machine 2. “The locking data is a
signal that prevents the slot machine 2 from accepting coins and entering
manual mode unless automated play is terminated by the player that initiated
it.” Col. 8, ll. 62-67. Automated play commences either by the player
selecting preset time, a lock start time, and then server 4 initiates automated
play, or immediately upon the player entering the player parameters at the
slot machine 2. Regardless of the manner of commencing automated play,
the slot machine 2 operates in accordance to the standard mode of gaming
operation as explained in column 4 lines 22-37 and illustrated in figure 2.
Col. 9, ll. 1-18. Then, the slot machine 2 generates outcome data and
transmits any data to slot server 4. Slot server 4 receives the data and
updates the player database 444 and slot machine database 449.
Additionally, slot server 4 accesses automated session database 446 to
determine bet per pull and credit balance field 4446 in the player’s record to
decrease the amount by the bet per pull and increase the amount of credit by
the payout 4497, if any. Col. 9, ll. 25-42.
The actual limiting values are updated as needed during the automated
game play session. For instance, the number of pulls value is incremented
by one and the losses/winnings are changed to reflect the results of the last
game. Additionally, slot network server 4 stores the time it takes to proceed
to transmitting the output data and uses that time as part of the determination
of the time between handle pulls. Col. 9, ll. 43-64.
Appeal 2009-009500
Application 10/504,313

5
Once the slot network server 4 receives the outcome data and updates
the databases, the server transmits the results of play to the remote player
communication device 6 in a recognized manner and using recognized
protocols. Col. 10, ll. 8-25. The player communication device 6
communicates the outcome data to the player in the forms of displaying the
positions of the reels in order for the player to enjoy the excitement of play
without being physically present at the slot machine 2. Furthermore, the
player communication device 6 permits the player to adjust the limiting
criteria in order to maximize enjoyment and potential return. Col. 10, ll. 26-
37. Further, Walker discloses multiple ways the player may replenish
monies to maintain automated play session. Col. 10, ll. 38-51.
The slot network server 4, after every turn of automated play,
determines whether any of the limited criteria have occurred. If any one of
them have occurred, then the slot network server 4, stops the automated play
session and transmits to the player communication device 6 a notification
that automated play has ended. The slot machine 2, alternatively, may
remain locked-up or may be unlocked by the slot network server 4
transmitting an unlocking signal to the slot machine 2. Following the latter,
receiving the unlocking signal indicates to the slot machine 2 that it may
accept coins and allow other players to commence play. Col. 10, 1. 52 to
col. 11, l. 10.
Alcorn provides a system for authenticating and securing, on-line
communication between remote locations in order to enable a player, via a
remote user terminal, in a remote location to communicate over a
communication medium with a gaming host at another location. The
location of the remote user terminal, the gaming host server, and the
Appeal 2009-009500
Application 10/504,313

6
universal time are determined by using a means for accessing signals
generated by the global positioning system satellites. Player authentication
(identity verification) is determined by use of a personal identification
number (PIN) and an electronic signature verification service. Security of
communication is accomplished through the use of a public-key/private-key
encryption system. Abstract. It is important to have a secure
communication between the casino and remote player location in order to
preclude tampering of any communication and enforcement of any necessary
regulations. See Col. 3, ll. 7-37.
In particular, Alcorn teaches that a computer-based remote
communication terminal assembly 10 communicates to a casino/server 15
via a communications network 16, e.g., the Internet, and further has a CD-
ROM 17. The CD-ROM 17 contains the remote server public key software
and software relating to games or other matter that is to be displayed on the
monitor screen for viewing by the remote user. Col. 4, ll. 56-66.
Once the communication link has been established and authenticated,
the user is authorized to play a game or engage in another transaction.
Commencement of play is made by manipulating the input device 12
associated with the personal computer 11 of the terminal assembly 10. The
personal computer 11 displays on its monitor 18 a representation of the
game being played and communicates the player input to the server 15. The
server 15 will in turn energize a random number generator (RNG),
determine a game output, and communicate the output back to the terminal
assembly 11 which in turn selects an appropriate game ending routine and
displays a corresponding result. For a win, the casino server credits the
player’s account with the amount of winnings after decrementing the
Appeal 2009-009500
Application 10/504,313

7
account by the originally wagered amount. The game can be continuously
played in this manner with all communications being encrypted and
decrypted at both ends such that even though the communication channel is
an unsecured channel, the encryption renders the transactional
communication secure. Col. 8, ll. 3-25.
Analysis
The Examiner reasons that “[t]he resultant combination of elements
would provide for the remote loading and execution of the game and proxy
play system of Walker at a location remote from the server or game machine
in view of the teachings from Alcorn.” Ans. 4. This reasoning has to be
premised upon a finding of fact that Alcorn teaches executing the game at a
remote location. However, as noted from our findings of fact above, Alcorn
does not execute the game at the remote user terminal. What Alcorn
executes at the remote user terminal is the commencement of the game and
the results of the game. The game per se is executed at the casino/server. A
person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the game per se is
the generation of the random number by the RNG. Once the random
number is generated, the game per se is completed. What remains is
displaying the outcome to the player, i.e., the visual depiction of a win or
loss that occurs when that random number is generated by the RNG. In
Alcorn, the outcome is displayed at the remote location, the terminal
assembly. Likewise, in Walker, the outcome is displayed at the remote
location, the player communication device. As such, the application of
Alcorn’s teachings to Walker would likely suggest using a public/private
key encryption in combination with an unsecure communication channel
with Walker’s slot server network 4 for communications to and from slot
Appeal 2009-009500
Application 10/504,313

8
machine 2 and the player communication device 6 in lieu of the slot network
3 which is taught as being a conventional local area network (LAN).
Moreover, the Examiner’s reliance on In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019
(CCPA 1950) is an inappropriate rationale to support the obviousness
rejection. As noted by the Examiner, the court concluded that the claimed
press with a different position for the switch would have been obvious since
the shifting (rearrangement) of the position of the switch would not have
modified the operation of the prior art press. See Ans. 5. Here, the
Examiner fails to cogently explain how the proposed modification of Walker
with the teachings of Alcorn would not have modified the operation of
Walker’s system.

CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 51-68 as being unpatentable over Walker and Alcorn.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 51-68 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Alcorn.

REVERSED
Klh

MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
300 S. WACKER DRIVE
32ND FLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606