Ex Parte Scheper et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 15, 2016

12228713 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/228,713 08/15/2008
66137 7590 08/17/2016
TRASKBRITT, P.C. /Bally Gaming, Inc.
P.O. BOX 2550
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84110
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul K. Scheper
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
PA2320.ap.US 6831
EXAMINER
YEN,JASONTAHAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/17/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
USPTOMail@traskbritt.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAULK. SCHEPER, ATTILA GRAUZER,
JAMES V. KELLY, and JAMES B. STASSON
Appeal 2014-007984 1,2
Application 12/228,713
Technology Center 3700
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 27-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Specification ("Spec.," filed Aug. 15,
2008), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Mar. 14, 2014), and Reply Brief
("Reply Br.," filed July 14, 2014), as well as the Examiner's Answer
("Answer," mailed May 14, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, "SHFL entertainment, Inc. (formerly known
as Shuffle Master, Inc.), ... and Bank of America" are the real parties in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-007984
Application 12/228,713
According to Appellants, the "invention relates to the field of gaming,
the field of casino table card gaming, the play of card games delivered from
playing card delivery shoes manually by a dealer, and the use of equipment
with processing capability in the play of baccarat." Spec. 1, 11. 7-9.
Independent claim 27 is the only independent claim under appeal. See
Appeal Br., Claims App. We reproduce independent claim 27, below, as
representative of the appealed claims.
Id.
27. A card-reading shoe, comprising:
a processor in the card-reading shoe;
a card-reading system internal to the shoe; and
a gate pivotally mounted at an output end of the shoe, the
gate being configured to prevent removed cards from being
reinserted into the card-reading shoe at the output end.
REJECTION AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 27-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Grauzer (US 2002/0163125 Al, pub. Nov. 7, 2002). See
Answer 3--4.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 27 recites, among other limitations, "a gate
pivotally mounted at an output end of the shoe, the gate being configured to
prevent removed cards from being reinserted into the card-reading shoe at
the output end." Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner and Appellants
disagree as to whether Grauzer's gate prevents cards that are removed from
a shoe from being reinserted into the shoe's output end, as claimed. See,
2
Appeal2014-007984
Application 12/228,713
e.g., Answer 5-6; see, e.g., Appeal Br. 6-8; see, e.g., Reply Br. 2-3.
Specifically, Appellants argue that although Grauzer's gate prevents a card
from being reinserted into a shoe's card way (that is located away from the
shoe's output end), the gate does not prevent a card from being reinserted
into the shoe's output end, while the Examiner determines that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claim does not exclude Grauzer' s card way
from being interpreted as the claimed output end, and, thus, Grauzer teaches
a gate that prevents a card from being reinserted into the shoe's output end.
Based on our review, we agree with Appellants. Turning to
Appellants' Specification for an understanding of the claimed "output end,"
the Specification describes, with reference to Appellants' Figure 3, that
"[t]he cards are moved by the speed-up rollers 28, 28b and pinch rollers 26,
26b into a delivery position near the output end 16 of the shoe. The cards
are then manually removed one-at-a-time, through access area or finger
slot 58." Spec. 9, 11. 22-25. Figure 3 shows that output end 16 is located
such that cards are removed from the shoe by way of slot 58 from output
end 16. Conversely, the Examiner does not point to anything in Appellants'
Specification that describes that the claimed output end may be a portion of
the shoe other than a portion by which the card is removed from the shoe.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we determine that a broadest, reasonable
interpretation of the claimed "output end" which is consistent with
Appellants' Specification is an end of the shoe from which a card is
removed. Further, we note that this interpretation appears to be consistent
with Grauzer. Specifically, Grauzer describes that gate 400, on which the
Examiner relies to disclose the claimed gate (see, e.g., Answer 4) prevents
cards from being pushed back into card way 206 (see Grauzer para. 187; see
3
Appeal2014-007984
Application 12/228,713
also id. at 186, 188), and that card way 206 passes cards to output shoe 3 6.
Thus, we understand that according to Grauzer, gate 400 blocks card
way 206 that Grauzer describes is separate from the shoe output (i.e., output
shoe 36).
Inasmuch as the Examiner does not establish that Grauzer discloses
preventing reinsertion of a card in a shoe output end, as claimed, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 27. Further, we do not sustain the rejection of
either of claims 28 and 29 that depend from claim 27.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
claims 27-29.
REVERSED
4