Ex Parte Pavlovich et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 29, 2012

10556625 (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.
10/556,625 11/10/2005 Efremov Ivan Pavlovich 7449-85951 8472
22242 7590 03/01/2012
FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP
120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET
SUITE 1600
CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406
EXAMINER
RUSTEMEYER, MALINA K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3716
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2012 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 EFREMOV IVAN PAVLOVICH and NATANSON LEV
GRIGORIEVICH
____________

Appeal 2010-005790
Application 10/556,625
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before: ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-005790
Application 10/556,625

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the
final rejection of claims 42-64 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 AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a card game playing
table which is equipped with electronic devices. (Spec.1:3-4, 2:25-27).
Claim 42, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.

42. An arrangement for a card game between at least one player
and a dealer, where the player and the dealer may in tum raise wagers
multiple times, the arrangement comprising: wager;
- a game table;
- a chip rack;
- a table cover with an outline of a game field;
an electronic card reader to determine dealer's cards;
special playing cards readable by the electronic card reader;
- a chip counter on the table in front of every player to
determine size of player's wager
- a calculating device to analyze incoming data and to make the
most effective analytical playing decisions for the dealer using
a game algorithm and a computer program designed for the
game; and
- a monitor to display playing decisions received from the
calculating device for the dealer to carry out,
wherein the calculating device makes analytical playing decisions for
the dealer to fold, to see or to raise the wager based on interpreting
Appeal 2010-005790
Application 10/556,625

3
information about the dealer's cards and the player's wager, and the
dealer is obligated to carry out the analytical playing decisions.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Boylan US 5,141,234 Aug. 25, 1992
Sines US 6,270,404 B2 Aug. 7, 2001
Soltys US 2003/0176209 A1 Sep. 18, 2003

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 42-50, 54-56, 58-59, and 61-62 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sines and Soltys.
2. Claims 51-53, 57, 60, and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sines, Soltys, and Boylan.

THE ISSUES
With regards to claim 42, the issue turns on whether the claimed
“dealer” in the card game may be considered a player and if it would have
been obvious to modify the prior art references of Sines with Soltys to meet
the argued claim limitations. The remaining claims turn on the same or a
similar issue.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiners findings of facts found in the Answer at page
3:23-4:7. Additional facts may appear in the Analysis section below.

Appeal 2010-005790
Application 10/556,625

4

ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the rejection of 42 is improper because
Sines and Soltys are not properly combinable. Specifically, the Appellants
argue that Sines teaches away from using physical playing cards and that the
claims require that a “dealer” cannot be considered to be a “player” in the
card game (Br. 7-12, Reply Br. 2-4).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is
proper (Ans. 3-5, 11-15).
We agree with the Examiner. Sines has disclosed a casino style card
game which uses virtual playing cards at gaming tables and betting chip
detection zone 120 (Abstract, Fig. 1-2). Sines at col. 19:42-57 also discloses
a game processor that monitors the player’s hands counts, the cards dealt,
and provides basic strategy suggestions for use by the players in response to
different hands. Soltys has disclosed a stacked set of playing cards with
machine readable indicia which is readable by a card reader (Abstract, Fig.
3).
Here, the modification of the casino style electronic card game of
Sines to use actual physical playing cards machine readable indicia instead
of electronic cards is considered an obvious, predictable modification for the
benefit of enhancing the players experience in a casino by using actual
playing cards rather than digital playing cards. Here, the card game can
either be played with real playing cards, which give the benefit of providing
a real card game experience, or some other simulated type of card which
may provide a different benefit such as being a lower cost or preventing
cheating.
Appeal 2010-005790
Application 10/556,625

5
When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem
and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of
ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her
technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the
product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Further, the dealer is considered a “player” in the game under a
broadest reasonable interpretation since they are given a hand, participate in
the game, and can win or lose in the game. The claim does not exclude the
dealer from being both a “player” and the “dealer” in the game. As Sines
has disclosed providing player’s with basic strategy suggestions at col. 1:42-
57 this claimed feature is met by the combination. Regardless, providing
strategy suggestions to the dealer as well would have been an obvious,
predictable, modification in order to provide mathematical strategy to the
human card dealer to increase casino profits.
For these reasons the rejection of claim 42, and the remaining claims
which have not been separately argued, is sustained.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims listed in Rejection section above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 42-64 is sustained.

Appeal 2010-005790
Application 10/556,625

6
AFFIRMED

MP