Ex Parte Vaioli

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 17, 2013

10868943 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_________________

Ex parte ROBERTO VAIOLI
_________________

Appeal 2011-002520
Application 10/868,943
Technology Center 3700
_________________

ORDER VACATING BOARD DECISION
The Decision on Appeal in this application mailed on February 13,
2013, omitted the disposition of claim 1071. Accordingly, the correct
Decision on Appeal is herewith attached to this order.
Appellant’s time for seeking rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1)
expires two (2) months from the mail date of this order.

SJB/mls

1 An Errata was issued subsequent to the February 13, 2013 Decision, which
corrected the disposition of claims on appeal, with the exclusion of claim
107. The corrections identified in the February 23, 2013, Errata are
incorporated into the attached Decision.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERTO VAIOLI
____________

Appeal 2011-002520
Application 10/868,943
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, RICHARD E. RICE, and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Roberto Vaioli (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6, 59-63, 74, and 102-196. Claims
6, 59-63, 74, 102, and 159 are the independent claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

Appeal 2011-002520
Application 10/868,943

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a method for managing at
least one event (e.g., a detected fault) in a bowling establishment or similar
facility. Spec. 1, ll. 3-5. Claims 6 and 59 are representative of the subject
matter on appeal and are reproduced below with the key disputed limitation
emphasized.
6. A method for managing at least one event in a
bowling establishment or similar facility, the bowling
establishment comprising at least one lane along which a ball is
rolled and an apparatus for setting up the pins and returning the
ball, the method comprising:
generating a signal relating to the at least one event,
wherein the at least one event produces a call for service
condition;
automatically transmitting the event signal as a
notification signal to an operator;
displaying a first image informing players that a fault has
been detected;
displaying a second image informing the players that
repairs are in progress; and
displaying a third image informing the players that the
repairs have been completed.

59. A method for managing at least one event in a
bowling establishment or similar facility, the bowling
establishment comprising at least one lane along which a ball is
rolled and an apparatus for setting up the pins and returning the
ball, the method comprising:
generating a signal relating to the at least one event,
wherein the at least one event produces a call for service
condition; and
collecting, storing, and displaying statistical data
relating to servicing of the bowling establishment lanes and
apparatus.

Appeal 2011-002520
Application 10/868,943

3
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies on the following evidence:
Dugan US 2,937,370 May 17, 1960
Mowers US 5,101,354 Mar. 31, 1992
Form US 5,198,976 Mar. 30, 1993
Kruse US 5,618,238 Apr. 8, 1997
Pascal US 5,971,851 Oct. 26, 1999
Pace US 2002/0058550 A1 May 16, 2002

THE REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
Claims 6, 74, 102-106, 121-132, 134-136, 156, 159, 160-169, 173-
177, 183-188, and 194-196 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Form, Kruse and Pascal.
Claims 59-63, 107-120, 133, 137-149, 151, 152, 154, 155, 170-172,
189, and 190-193 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Form,
Pascal and Pace.1
Claims 150, 153, 155, 157, and 158 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Form, Pascal, Pace and Dugan.
Claims 178-182 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Form,
Pascal, Pace and Mowers.
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 6, 74, 102-106, 121-132, 134-136, 156, 159, 160-
169, 173-177, 183-188, and 194-196 over Form, Kruse and Pascal.
Independent claims 6 and 74 recite, among other things, first, second,

1 The Examiner clarifies, on page 3 of the Answer, that claim 107 is rejected
“under the same heading with Claim 108 under Form and Pascal in view of
Pace.”
Appeal 2011-002520
Application 10/868,943

4
and third images, the third image informing players that repairs have been
completed. Claims 102 and 159 recite, among other things, “informing
bowlers that the repair work is complete.”
The Examiner finds that Form teaches an interactive bowling alley
method for managing at least one event in a bowling establishment, the
method comprising at least one lane along which a ball is rolled and an
apparatus for setting up pins and returning the ball. Ans. 5. The Examiner
also finds that Form’s method comprises manually generating a signal
relating to the at least one event, and transmitting the event signal as a
notification signal to an operator, wherein the at least one event produces a
call for a service condition. Id. The Examiner notes that a more explicit
description of the bowling alley lanes, bays, control consoles, monitors, and
communications is found in Kruse. Id.
The Examiner admits that Form does not explicitly teach
automatically transmitting the event signal to an operator, or displaying a
first, second, and third image informing players that a fault has been
detected, repairs are in progress, and that the repairs have been completed,
respectively. Ans. 6.
The Examiner finds that Pascal teaches a casino (stated to be an
analogous amusement establishment) having gaming machines that
occasionally malfunction, enter into a lock up state, cease all functions, and
leave the player stranded. Id. Pascal also teaches a system and method of
servicing faults and at the same time displaying information and video clips
while the player is waiting (fig. 7). Ans. 7. Pascal manages machine faults
by displaying information to the player about what has happened, what is
going to happen, and returns the game to a normal operating mode once
Appeal 2011-002520
Application 10/868,943

5
repairs are complete. Id. The Examiner finds: “In this way, Pascal is
displaying and informing to the player that a fault has occurred, steps are
being undertaken to fix the problem, and when the player sees the game
restored to the normal operating mode, the player will know that the repair is
complete.” Id. The Examiner also finds:
Pascal presents an event processing scheme in which the
method “receives event notifications from a variety of sources”
. . . and wherein a “player is provided with an explanation of the
problem as well as the action taken to solve the problem” . . .
the player receives entertainment, and then once the stoppage is
cleared, the player is made aware by the application being
unloaded . . . showing to the player that he can resume play.
Ans. 7-8.
The Examiner more particularly finds that Pascal teaches displaying
images on a monitor 28, the images including a first displayed image
informing players that the device is out of service, and a second displayed
image informing players that repairs are in progress. Ans. 9. The Examiner
then finds that Pascal’s video clip cessation and the return to normal play
mode provides an indication to the player that the problem has been fixed,
because the player seeing the video ending and the game “back to normal”
after receiving a message telling him of a problem is informed “cognitively
and visually” that the repair is complete. Id.
The Examiner concludes that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to employ the
automatic fault generation and first, second, and third images,
and predetermined codes as taught by Pascal [in] the
announcement function, problem correction, and message
displays of Form in order to explain to a bowler, in a user-
friendly manner at their console: a) the problems encountered
resulting in a fault, b) display entertainment until the stoppage
Appeal 2011-002520
Application 10/868,943

6
is resolved, and c) indicate normal play is resumed
to maintain the player’s interest while waiting for an attendant's assistance.
Ans. 10.
Appellant argues Pascal discloses that when a game machine
experiences a fault, it would be beneficial to play a video commercial on the
game machine display to maintain the user's interest while waiting for an
attendant’s assistance. Br. 10. More specifically, Pascal teaches that the
system can initiate a service call for an attendant and also explain to the
player, in a user-friendly manner, the problems encountered and play a video
clip to entertain the player. Br. 11. In a narrative fashion, the player is
provided with an explanation of the problem as well as the action undertaken
to solve the problem. Id. However, Pascal does not disclose or suggest
displaying a third image informing the players that the repairs have been
completed. Id. Regarding the Examiner equating Pascal’s resumption of
play to the recited third image that repairs have been completed, Appellant
argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the resumption of normal
game play in Pascal constitutes displaying a third image informing the
players that the repairs have been completed. Id.
Appellant notes that while Pascal admittedly teaches providing the
player with an explanation of the problem as well as the action undertaken to
solve the problem, and displaying entertainment while the problem with the
video gaming machine is being solved, Pascal does not disclose or suggest
displaying a third image informing the players that the repairs have been
completed. Br. 12. Regarding the Examiner equating Pascal’s resumption
of play to the recited third image informing a bowler that repairs have been
completed, Appellant argues that merely having the ability to resume play is
Appeal 2011-002520
Application 10/868,943

7
not the same as being informed that repairs have been completed,
particularly in the context of a bowling alley. Id.
Appellant argues that, in the context of a bowling alley, it is
advantageous to explicitly inform the bowlers that repairs have been
completed. In a bowling alley, changing the image at the display at the
bowler’s bay from informative entertainment back to, for example, the score
card, does not necessarily indicate that repair work is complete, because the
technician might still be working on the pin-setting machine, out of view of
the players. Br. 13.
We agree with Appellant. Whether or not the effect of displaying a
screen would have a different implication for bowlers than for gaming
establishment patrons, displaying a screen that allows a user to resume
playing an electronic game is simply not the same as informing a user that
repairs have been completed.
We therefore do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 6, 74,
102, and 159 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Form, Kruse and
Pascal. Because we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 6, 74,
102, and 159, we therefore do not sustain the rejection of claims 103-106,
121-132, 134-136, 156, 160-169, 173-177, 183-188, and 194-196 that
depend therefrom.
Rejections of Claims 150, 153, 155, 157, and 158 over Form, Pascal,
Pace and Dugan and Claims 178-182 over Form, Pascal, Pace and Mowers.
Claims 150, 153, 155, 157, and 158 depend from claim 102, and
claims 178-182 depend from claim 159. The Examiner does not find that
any of Pace, Dugan, or Mowers cures the deficiencies of Form, Kruse, and
Pascal, as discussed supra with respect to claims 102 and 159. We therefore
Appeal 2011-002520
Application 10/868,943

8
do not sustain the rejection of claims 150, 153, 155, 157, and 158 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Form, Pascal, Pace and Dugan, nor do
we sustain the rejection of claims 178-182 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Form, Pascal, Pace and Mowers.
Rejection of Claims 59-63, 107-120, 133, 137-149, 151, 152, 154,
155, 170-172, 189, and 190-193 over Form, Pascal and Pace.
The Examiner finds that Form discloses an interactive bowling alley
method for managing at least one event in a bowling establishment or
similar facility, the bowling establishment comprising at least one lane along
which a ball is rolled, and an apparatus for setting up the pins and returning
the ball, the method comprising generating a signal relating to the at least
one event, the at least one event producing a call for a service condition.
Ans. 22-23.
The Examiner admits that Form is silent regarding: collecting,
storing, and displaying statistical data relating to servicing of the bowling
lanes and apparatus (claim 59); processing data relating to machine down
time (claim 60); measuring an average response time of an operator;
measuring an average work time of an operator servicing a bowling machine
(claim 62); and a maintenance and repair operator communicating directly
with players at the bowling lane (claim 63) Ans. 27-28.
The Examiner finds that Pace teaches a gaming machine service
scheduling system and a method including collecting, storing, and displaying
in a relational database: statistical data relating to servicing of gaming
machines; processing data relating to machine down time; measuring an
average response time of an operator; measuring an average work time of an
operator; and a maintenance and repair operator communicating directly
Appeal 2011-002520
Application 10/868,943

9
with players. Ans. 28-29.
The Examiner also finds that Pace provides these metrics and features
to ensure timely servicing of events so that events are resolved in an
effective and timely manner, and to reduce the amount of time it takes to
respond to a player’s needs. Ans. 29. The Examiner determines that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to combine the relational database and service metrics
as taught by Pace with the teachings of Form as modified by Pascal in order
to ensure timely servicing of events, so that these events are resolved in an
effective and timely manner and to reduce the amount of time it takes to
respond to a player’s needs. Id.
With respect to claim 59, Appellant argues that Pace describes a
system for providing service to casino gaming machines, making no mention
of a bowling establishment, and therefore Pace cannot reasonably be said to
disclose or suggest “collecting, storing, and displaying statistical data
relating to servicing of the bowling establishment lanes and apparatus.” Br.
25. With respect to claim 60, Appellant alleges that Pace describes a system
for providing service to casino gaming machines, making no mention of a
bowling establishment, and therefore Pace cannot reasonably be said to
disclose or suggest “processing data relating to bowling machine down
time.” Br. 28-29. With respect to claim 61, Appellant alleges that Pace
describes a system for providing service to casino gaming machines, making
no mention of a bowling establishment, and therefore Pace cannot
reasonably be said to disclose or suggest “measuring an average response
time of an operator servicing a bowling machine.” Br. 30-31. With respect
to claim 62, Appellant alleges that Pace describes a system for providing
Appeal 2011-002520
Application 10/868,943

10
service to casino gaming machines, making no mention of a bowling
establishment, and therefore Pace cannot reasonably be said to disclose or
suggest “measuring an average work time of an operator servicing a
bowling machine.” Br. 32. With respect to claim 63, Appellant alleges that
Pace describes a system for providing service to casino gaming machines,
making no mention of a bowling establishment, and therefore Pace cannot
reasonably be said to disclose or suggest “a maintenance and repair
operator communicating directly with players at the bowling lane.” Br. 33-
34. We note that the Examiner does not allege that Pace teaches collecting,
storing, and displaying statistical data relating to servicing of a bowling
establishment, but rather that Pace’s data collection, storage, and display can
be utilized in Form’s bowling establishment.
Appellant also argues that, even if Pace can be construed as teaching
the various data-related limitations of claims 59-62 or the direct
communication of claim 63, the Examiner has not established that it would
have been obvious to modify Form to include these features, i.e., the
Examiner has not articulated how Form could be modified to include the
teachings of Pace, or that such a modification would have produced
expected results. Id. Instead, the Examiner merely identifies features in
Pace, and concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Form to
include such features. Id. The Examiner, however, concluded that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to combine the relational database and service metrics as taught
by Pace with the teachings of Form as modified by Pascal in order to ensure
timely servicing of events, so that these events are resolved in an effective
and timely manner and to reduce the amount of time it takes to respond to a
Appeal 2011-002520
Application 10/868,943

11
player's needs, a reasoning which is itself found in Pace. Ans. 29, 52. We
find that the Examiner provided an articulated reasoning with a rational
underpinning to support his legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Appellant further argues that the rejection is improper because the
Examiner has not explained how the teachings of Pace could be used with
Form, much less that the combined element (from Pace) would perform the
same function in combination with Form as it did separately in Pace. We
disagree. The skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple
patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person
of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 420-21 (2007). Appellant has provided no evidence in the record,
or alleged anywhere in the record, that combining Pace’s relational database
and service metrics with the teachings of Form was “uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious
step over the prior art.” See Leapfrog Enters. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d
1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not found that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the proposed
combination of Form and Pace were predictable. Br. 26. We note that,
because the Examiner’s reasoning included a teaching in the prior art (Pace)
that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine prior art reference
teachings to arrive at the claimed invention, the Examiner did not err in
failing to assert that the combination of Form and Pace yielded a predictable
result.
Appellant then argues that the Examiner has merely selected the
Appeal 2011-002520
Application 10/868,943

12
elements of claims 59-63, alleged these elements to be present in Pace, and
alleged that a person of skill in the art would have incorporated these
elements into Form, and that the rejection is therefore conclusory. Id. We
disagree. The Examiner set forth an articulated reasoning with a rational
underpinning to support his legal conclusion of obviousness.
Appellant also argues that the rejection is based on impermissible
hindsight because the Examiner appears to be picking and choosing isolated
features from the applied art, and asserting that it would have been obvious
to combine the various features to arrive at the claimed invention. Br. 27.
Appellant explains that the Examiner has selected the elements of claims 59-
63, alleged these elements to be present in Pace, and alleged that a person of
skill in the art would have incorporated these elements into Form, making
the rejection a clear example of “blueprinting,” which renders the rejection
improper as being based upon impermissible hindsight. Id. Appellant does
not provide any analysis to support this argument, instead further arguing
that the rejection focuses only on the differences between the claims and the
prior art, and not whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been
obvious, and that the Examiner’s action of defining the problem in terms of
its solution reveals improper hindsight in the selection of the prior art
relevant to obviousness. Br. 27-28. To the contrary, the Examiner’s
proffered reasoning was found in the teachings of Pace itself rather than by
employing hindsight.
We sustain the rejection of claims 59-63 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
unpatentable over Form, Pascal and Pace. Claims 107-120, 133, 137-149,
151, 152, 154, 155, 170-172, 189, and 190-193 depend directly or indirectly
from independent claims 102 and 159. Because we do not sustain the
Appeal 2011-002520
Application 10/868,943

13
rejection of independent claims 102 and 159, we therefore do not sustain the
rejection of claims 107-120, 133, 137-149, 151, 152, 154, 155, 170-172,
189, and 190-193.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 6, 74, 102-106, 121-132, 134-136,
156, 159, 160-169, 173-177, 183-188, and 194-196 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Form, Kruse and Pascal.
We affirm the rejection of claims 59-63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Form, Pascal and Pace.
We reverse the rejection of claims 107-120, 133, 137-149, 151, 152,
154, 155, 170-172, 189, and 190-193 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Form, Pascal and Pace.
We reverse the rejection of claims 150, 153, 155, 157, and 158 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Form, Pascal, Pace and Dugan.
We reverse the rejection of claims 178-182 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Form, Pascal, Pace and Mowers.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART