11186486 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2012)

Ex Parte Thomas

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 26, 2012

11186486 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2012)

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. 11/186,486 07/21/2005 Alfred Thomas 247079-000277USPT 6332 70243 7590 10/29/2012 NIXON PEABODY LLP 300 S. Riverside Plaza 16th Floor CHICAGO, IL 60606 EXAMINER DEODHAR, OMKAR A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3714 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/29/2012 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ALFRED THOMAS ____________ Appeal 2010-007478 Application 11/186,486 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER and JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoseloff (US 6,311,976 B1; iss. Nov. 6, 2001) and Jackson (US 6,755,737 B2; iss. Jun. 29, 2004). App. Br. 5, 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2010-007478 Application 11/186,486 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal: 1. A gaming terminal for playing a video wagering game, comprising: a display; and a controller coupled to said display and programmed to present at least one randomly-selected outcome of a plurality of outcomes on a basic window of said display, said randomly-selected outcome being presented in the form of an array of symbols displayed on the basic window, open a popup window having at least one popup symbol and overlapping at least a portion of the basic window, the at least one popup symbol being indicative in part of another game outcome, and indicate the another game outcome in the form of an arrangement including said at least one popup symbol of the popup window and at least one symbol of said array of symbols displayed on the basic window. ANALYSIS Claims 1-22 as unpatentable over Yoseloff and Jackson Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-12, and 15-22 Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 5, 7-12, and 15-22 as a group. App. Br. 11-17. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). The Examiner found that Yoseloff discloses a gaming terminal with a display and a controller programmed to present at least one randomly- selected outcome as an array of symbols (col. 14, ll. 13-67; fig. 1) and open a popup window with at least one popup symbol overlapping at least part of the basic window (col. 6, ll. 58-67; col. 7, ll. 1-8). Ans. 3-4. The Examiner Appeal 2010-007478 Application 11/186,486 3 found that Yoseloff discloses symbols that morph into other symbols but do not pop up on the display screen. Ans. 4. The Examiner found that Jackson discloses a pop-up window 48 (fig. 3) with game information on a display screen (figs. 5, 6) and determined that it would have been obvious to substitute such a window into Yoseloff so symbols pop-up instead of morph as a substitution of known elements in the gaming arts and when the window is “popped out” it moves to overlay an underlying display portion. Ans. 4. Appellant argues that even if a skilled artisan would have substituted Jackson’s popup symbols for Yoseloff’s morphing symbols, Yoseloff “still lacks presenting the two different outcomes presented by the respective symbols: (a) the randomly-selected outcome presented by basic symbols, and (b) another game outcome presented by a basic symbol and a popup symbol” as called for in independent claims 1, 11, and 22. App. Br. 14. See also App. Br. 11, 13, 15-16. This argument does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Yoseloff discloses a video game where basic game results are evaluated and then game results provided by the addition of wild symbols are evaluated to provide two outcomes – a basic outcome and a secondary outcome evaluated with basic symbols and wild symbols.1 Ans. 8 (citing col. 7, ll. 2-5 and 41-48; col. 16, ll. 13-16). Yoseloff displays basic symbols with wild symbols that can morph into other game symbols. Game results are evaluated for winning combinations of original (basic) symbols and/or additional wild symbols. Col. 6, l. 58 to col. 7, l. 5; figs. 5-6. 1 Appellant discloses a controller programmed to present at least one randomly-selected outcome in the form of an array of symbols and a popup window with at least one popup symbol, wherein “[a] game outcome is indicated with an arrangement including the at least one popup symbol and at least one symbol of said array of symbols.” Spec. para. [0009]. Appeal 2010-007478 Application 11/186,486 4 Appellant also argues that Jackson merely shows a popup window 50 on the screen within the area of dashed outline 48 and does not show any outcomes presented by a combination of a basic symbol and popup symbol. App. Br. 14-15. This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner relied on Yoseloff to disclose this feature as discussed supra. Appellant contends that there is no motivation to combine Yoseloff and Jackson to arrive at a wagering game in which another game outcome is indicated by a popup symbol and a basic symbol except for Appellant’s Specification. App. Br. 16-17. This argument does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Yoseloff discloses a secondary game outcome based on morphed wild symbols and basic game symbols as discussed supra and Jackson teaches that popup windows are a known way to present wild symbols. Providing wild symbols that popup instead of morph in Yoseloff yields “predictable results of a visual indication of Yoseloff’s wild symbol via a pop-up window to indicate a secondary outcome.” Ans. 9-10. We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7-12, and 15-22. Claim 3 Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and calls for the popup window to be in a fixed location overlaying a basic window. Appellant argues that Yoseloff does not disclose a popup window and Jackson’s popup window 50 does not overlay any basic window. App. Br. 17. This argument does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings that a popped-up window necessarily overlays a basic window and Yoseloff’s morphing occurs in a basic window so that a popped-up window would overlay the basic window. Ans. 10-11. Jackson also discloses a pop-up window 50 (fig. 5) that overlays a basic window at 48 (fig. 3). Col. 4, ll. 18-32. We sustain the rejection of claim 3. Appeal 2010-007478 Application 11/186,486 5 Claim 4 Dependent claim 4 calls for the popup window to be rotatable over the basic window. The Examiner found that Yoseloff discloses a morphing symbol that spins and rotates and “when Jackson’s pop-up window appears on a morphing symbol position, it likewise expresses morphing attributes such as animation including spinning.” Ans. 5, 11. Appellant argues that Jackson’s pop-up window 50 does not rotate so even if Yoseloff discloses a morphing symbol that spins, this does not disclose a popup window that spins. App. Br. 17-18. This argument does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s finding that the combined teachings of Yoseloff and Jackson would yield a spinning pop-up window. Yoseloff teaches morphing and spinning symbols, which comprise a window of data (fig. 6), and Jackson teaches that such data can pop up. We sustain the rejection of claim 4. Claim 6 Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites that the at least one popup symbol is located in an independent reel. The Examiner found that Yoseloff discloses a reel-slot game with five independent reels and “[e]ach reel shows three symbol positions . . . .” so that Jackson’s pop-up window would appear on the same independent reel as the wild symbol. Ans. 11. Appellant argues that Yoseloff does not disclose a popup symbol and the popup window 50 of Jackson is not located on an independent reel. App. Br. 18. This argument does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s finding that substituting a pop-up symbol for a morphing symbol on one of Yoseloff’s reels would result in the pop-up symbol being located on that independent reel. We sustain the rejection of claim 6. Appeal 2010-007478 Application 11/186,486 6 Claim 13 Claim 13 depends from claim 11 and calls for moving the popup window over the basic window. Appellant argues that the Final Rejection fails to address this claim element. App. Br. 18-19. This argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding that combining Yoseloff and Jackson would result in a window being popped out so that it moves over the basic window as called for in claim 13. Ans. 11; see Final Rej. 4. We sustain the rejection of claim 13. Claim 14 Claim 14 depends from claim 11 and calls for displaying the at least one popup symbol in motion on said popup window. Appellant argues that the Examiner has failed to address this claim element. App. Br. 19. This argument does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s finding that the proposed combination would include a pop-up window that moves over the basic window when it pops up and includes spinning symbols as taught by Yoseloff. Ans. 4, 11. We sustain the rejection of claim 14. DECISION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-22. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mls