Ex Parte Pryzby

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 16, 2011

11456908 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 16, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ERIC M. PRYZBY
____________

Appeal 2010-004963
Application 11/456,908
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and
MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004963
Application 11/456,908

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s 2
decision finally rejecting claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being 3
anticipated by Hecht (US 2003/0073491 A1, publ. Apr. 17, 2003). We have 4
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 5
We AFFIRM. 6
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative of 7
the claims on appeal. 8
1. A computerized wagering game system, 9
comprising: 10
a gaming module comprising a processor 11
and gaming code which is operable when executed 12
on the processor to present a wagering game on 13
which monetary value can be wagered; and 14
an audio module operable to play an audio 15
signal, and further operable to change the audio 16
signal based on win level in a wagering game event 17
such that an audio signal change is triggered by 18
won credits in a game causing a credit level to 19
reach any of a plurality of predetermined win level 20
thresholds. 21
(Italics added). 22
23
ISSUES 24
The Appellant addresses the rejections of independent claims 1, 8 and 25
15 as a group. Br. 9-11. The Appellant does not present separate arguments 26
for dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-23. Id. Thus, in accordance with 37 27
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), the dependent claims stand or fall with the 28
independent claim from which they depend. This appeal turns on the 29
following issues. 30
Appeal 2010-004963
Application 11/456,908

3
Does Hecht disclose an audio module “operable to 1
change the audio signal based on win level in a wagering game 2
event such that an audio signal change is triggered by won 3
credits in a game causing a credit level to reach any of a 4
plurality of predetermined win level thresholds” as recited in 5
claim 1? 6
Does Hecht disclose “varying the audio signal based on 7
win level in a wagering game event such that an audio signal 8
variation is triggered by won credits in a game causing a credit 9
level to reach any of a plurality of predetermined win level 10
thresholds” as recited in claim 8? 11
Does Hecht disclose “vary[ing] the audio signal based on 12
win level in a wagering game event such that varying the audio 13
signal is triggered by won credits in a game causing a credit 14
level to reach any of a plurality of predetermined win level 15
thresholds” as recited in claim 15? 16
17
FINDINGS OF FACT 18
The record supports the following findings of fact (“FF”) by a 19
preponderance of the evidence. 20
1. We adopt and incorporate by reference the Examiner’s findings 21
in the Examiner’s Answer beginning at page 3, line 11 “Hecht et al 22
discloses” and ending at page 4, line 3 “predetermined win level thresholds.” 23
2. We adopt and incorporate by reference the Examiner’s findings 24
in the Examiner’s Answer beginning at page 4, line 5 “Hecht et al discloses” 25
and ending at page 4, line 13 “predetermined win level thresholds.” 26
Appeal 2010-004963
Application 11/456,908

4
3. We adopt and incorporate by reference the Examiner’s findings 1
in the Examiner’s Answer beginning at page 4, line 15 “Hecht et al 2
discloses” and ending at page 5, line 2 “predetermined win level thresholds.” 3
4. We adopt the Examiner’s finding in the Examiner’s Answer at 4
page 5 citing to Hecht paragraph [0072], 5
[a]s the player continues to win, the sound file 6
continues to be modified. In such a case, it may be 7
desirable to set a limit so that, for example, the key 8
of the sound file is changed only five times, 9
wherein a limit is reached and the key of the sound 10
file remains in the fifth key. The limit can also be 11
stepped, for example, the sound file remains in a 12
first key for the consecutive wins, changes to a 13
second key for three consecutive wins, changes to 14
a third key for three consecutive wins, and so on. 15
16
ANALYSIS 17
As to all of the independent claims, claims 1, 8 and 15, the Appellant 18
contends that “Hecht fails to teach changing an audio signal based on won 19
credits reaching any of a plurality of predetermined win level thresholds, or 20
that multiple such predetermined won credit thresholds trigger audio 21
changes.” Br. 9. The Appellant holds this position despite acknowledging 22
that Hecht discloses “changes may in some embodiments accumulate for a 23
certain number of consecutive wins, such as five increases in key or volume 24
for the first five consecutive wins (see, para. 72).” Id. 25
The Examiner finds Hecht discloses a wagering game that accepts 26
coins 12 or bills 14 having a processor 38 and speakers 36. FF 1-3. The 27
Examiner finds that Hecht discloses, in paragraph [0072], changing audio 28
signals when the conditions for a stepped limit are satisfied. FF 4. Hecht 29
Appeal 2010-004963
Application 11/456,908

5
discloses an example of the stepped limit wherein the audio signal changes 1
from a first key to a second key after three consecutive wins. Id. In this 2
example, each win corresponds to a won credit. The three consecutive wins 3
correspond to a credit level at three. Upon accumulating the third won 4
credit, i.e. the credit level at three, the audio signal changes from a first key 5
to a second key. This event corresponds to reaching a first win level 6
threshold. Additionally, when accumulating three more consecutive wins, 7
the audio signal again changes from a second key to a third key. This event 8
corresponds to reaching a second win level threshold and establishes a 9
plurality of predetermined win level thresholds. See Ans. 5-6. For the 10
above reasons, Hecht discloses changing an audio signal based on won 11
credits reaching any of a plurality of predetermined win level thresholds; and 12
similarly, using multiple predetermined won credit thresholds triggering 13
audio changes. 14
15
CONCLUSION 16
Hecht discloses an audio module “operable to change the audio signal 17
based on win level in a wagering game event such that an audio signal 18
change is triggered by won credits in a game causing a credit level to reach 19
any of a plurality of predetermined win level thresholds” as recited in claim 20
1. Hecht discloses “varying the audio signal based on win level in a 21
wagering game event such that an audio signal variation is triggered by won 22
credits in a game causing a credit level to reach any of a plurality of 23
predetermined win level thresholds” as recited in claim 8. Hecht discloses 24
“vary[ing] the audio signal based on win level in a wagering game event 25
such that varying the audio signal is triggered by won credits in a game 26
Appeal 2010-004963
Application 11/456,908

6
causing a credit level to reach any of a plurality of predetermined win level 1
thresholds” as recited in claim 15. We sustain the rejection of claims 1-23 2
under § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hecht. 3
4
DECISION 5
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1-23. 6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with 7
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 8
§ 1.136(a)(1). 9
10
AFFIRMED 11
12
13
Klh 14