Ex Parte Okuniewicz

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 16, 2010

11057530 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 16, 2010)

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.
11/057,530 02/14/2005 Douglas M. Okuniewicz A9658-72768F 4389
32009 7590 09/16/2010
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
200 CLINTON AVE. WEST
SUITE 900
HUNTSVILLE, AL 35801
EXAMINER
MCCLELLAN, JAMES S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3714
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2010 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 DOUGLAS M. OKUNIEWICZ
____________

Appeal 2009-008471
Application 11/057,530
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, 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 2009-008471
Application 11/057,530

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Douglas M. Okuniewicz (Appellant) seeks our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-56. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is to a method of providing an
undisplayed outcome for an electronic gaming device. Spec. 1, para. [0001].
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of electronic gaming, comprising:
receiving a wager from a player;
electronically generating an outcome of the wager, where
the outcome is undisplayed to the player;
generating a cashless payout for the outcome; and
displaying the outcome according to the cashless payout.
THE REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-56
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garahi (U.S. Patent
Application Publication No. US 2001/0041612 A1; published November 15,
2001) and Three Card Brag (http://web.archive.org/web/20031204093745/
http://www.pagat.com/vying/brag.html, December 4, 2003) (hereafter
“Brag”).
ISSUE
The issue presented by this appeal is whether Garahi, as modified by
the teachings of Brag, would have led a person having ordinary skill in the
Appeal 2009-008471
Application 11/057,530

3
art to a method including the step of “electronically generating an outcome
of [a] wager, where the outcome is undisplayed to the player” as called for in
independent claim 1, or a method including the “step for electronically
generating an undisplayed gaming outcome” as called for in independent
claim 50.
ANALYSIS
With regard to independent claims 1 and 50, the Examiner found that
Garahi does not disclose electronically generating an outcome that is
undisclosed to a player, but Brag describes generating an outcome that is
undisplayed in that Brag discloses a card game that includes the option of
“playing blind” in which “a player has a randomly generat[ed] hand dealt
but chooses not to view the hand, leaving it undisplayed.” Ans. 4 (citing
Brag, p. 5). We disagree with the Examiner’s reading of the disclosure in
Brag.
An ordinary meaning of “outcome” is “An end result; a consequence.”
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed. 2000).
While Appellant’s Specification provides examples of displays of outcomes,
it does not provide any definition of outcome that is narrower than the
ordinary meaning of the word. See Spec. 4-5, para. [0017] (describing the
display of the outcome to the player as, for example: “reels spinning and
stopping, cards dealt, drawn, folded, etc; bingo, keno, lottery or sweepstakes
drawings, etc; bonuses, multipliers, or any other representation, indicia or
image, physical or simulated, of a predetermined, wholly skill based, or an at
Appeal 2009-008471
Application 11/057,530

4
least partially randomly determined, outcome represented as a gambling
game or one of its features”).
Brag is a gambling game similar to poker, but with a different method
of betting. Brag, p. 1. Brag describes that one option is to allow any player
to choose to play any hand blind. Brag, p. 5. “If you are playing blind you
do not look at your cards, but leave them face down on the table.” Id. Brag
describes that if you are playing blind and all the other players fold, then the
pot is carried forward to the next deal and the blind player is allowed to
retain his hand. Id. In order for someone to win the pot when a player is
playing blind, the outcome of the hand must be determined. Id. That is, the
players must decide who has won or lost the game. Id. The outcome can be
determined by the blind player revealing his cards to compare with the
remaining player’s cards to see which player had the best hand. Id. (items 2
and 3 – which involve the blind player seeing his cards). The outcome may
also be determined if the blind player folds, leaving a single open player to
win the pot. Id. (item 1 – which involves the blind player playing against a
single remaining open player). In that instance, although the blind player
folds without ever seeing his cards, the outcome of the event (i.e., that the
blind player folded and thus lost the game) is known to the player.
As such, in Brag, while the blind player’s cards are not necessarily
disclosed to the player during play, the outcome of the game is “displayed”
to the player at the conclusion of the game. In other words, at the end of the
game, the player learns whether he has won or lost the game for that wager.
As such, we agree with Appellant that “Brag does not teach or suggest the
Appeal 2009-008471
Application 11/057,530

5
generation of an undisplayed outcome. Rather, Brag merely incorporates the
method of playing a hand ‘blind’ prior to the hand’s conclusion (outcome).”
App. Br. 10. As such, the combination of Garahi and Brag does not render
obvious the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 50 or their respective
dependent claims 2-49 and 51-56.
CONCLUSION
Garahi, as modified by the teachings of Brag, would not have led a
person of ordinary skill in the art to a method including the step of
“electronically generating an outcome of [a] wager, where the outcome is
undisplayed to the player” as called for in independent claim 1, or a method
including the “step for electronically generating an undisplayed gaming
outcome” as called for in independent claim 50.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-56 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls

BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
200 CLINTON AVE. WEST
SUITE 900
HUNTSVILLE, AL 35801