IGT

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 1, 2022

2021004255 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2022)

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. 15/342,799 11/03/2016 Ali Saffari 025094-8204/LF00008-004 1044 29159 7590 02/01/2022 Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP (IGT) 2 N. LaSalle Street Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60602-3801 EXAMINER LARSEN, CARL VICTOR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/01/2022 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): amasia@ngelaw.com ipusmail@ngelaw.com patents@igt.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ALI SAFFARI, THOMAS MIKULICH, CHRIS GUMIELA, KIRK KOVER, and WILLIAM R. WELLS Appeal 2021-004255 Application 15/342,799 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as IGT by virtue of assignments via Leap Forward Gaming, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-004255 Application 15/342,799 2 BACKGROUND The Specification states that “[t]he invention relates to gaming devices that provide communication capabilities and enhanced gaming functions on an electronic gaming machine.” Spec. ¶ 2. CLAIMS Claims 1 and 8 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. A gaming machine physical item acceptor assembly comprising: a physical item acceptor; a processor; a first communication port configured to enable the processor to communicate first data to a game controller of a gaming machine, said first data associated with a receipt, via the physical item acceptor, of a physical item associated with a monetary value, and a second communication port configured to, distinct from any placement of any wager to play any game of the gaming machine, enable the processor to communicate second data to a secondary controller of a gaming establishment cashless system, said second data being received from a mobile device and being associated with a cashless and ticketless transfer of funds from the gaming establishment cashless system to the gaming machine, wherein said secondary controller is remote from the gaming machine, and the gaming establishment cashless system is distinct from a player tracking system. Appeal Br. 19. Appeal 2021-004255 Application 15/342,799 3 REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Phillips2 in view of Nguyen3 and Rowe.4 2. The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Phillips in view of Nguyen, Rowe, and Nelson.5 3. The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Phillips in view of Nguyen, Rowe, and Motyl.6 DISCUSSION With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Phillips teaches a device as claimed, except that Phillips does not explicitly teach said second data being received from a mobile device and being associated with a cashless and ticketless transfer of funds from the gaming establishment cashless system to the gaming machine and where the cashless funds transfer data is communicated to the secondary controller remote from the gaming machine and where the gaming establishment cashless system is distinct from a player tracking system. Final Act. 2-3 (citing Phillips Figs. 4-6; ¶¶ 80, 89, 95). The Examiner then finds that Nguyen teaches a gaming machine and a method of transferring funds to the gaming machine via a mobile device as recited in the claim and using a gaming establishment cashless system. Final Act. 3-4 (citing Nguyen Figs. 6A-6G; ¶¶ 73-83). In so doing, the Examiner relies on Nguyen teaching potential funding sources including a “player tracking 2 Phillips et al., US 2010/0081500 A1, pub. Apr. 1, 2010. 3 Nguyen, US 2012/0122584 A1, pub. May 17, 2012. 4 Rowe, US 2003/0171145 A1, pub. Sept. 11, 2003. 5 Nelson et al., US 2013/0065678 A1, pub. Mar. 14, 2013. 6 Motyl et al., US 2009/0270176 A1, pub. Oct. 29, 2009. Appeal 2021-004255 Application 15/342,799 4 number” as the gaming establishment cashless system. Id. However, the Examiner further relies on Rowe as teaching electronic funds transfer from various accounts including a gaming establishment cashless system in the form of a casino account that is distinct from a loyalty program account, i.e., a player tracking system or account. Id. at 4 (citing Rowe ¶ 162). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify Phillips based on the teachings of Nguyen “in order to provide a convenient and optional way for players to add funds to their gaming machine with their portable device without the need to use physical printed tickets.” Id. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to further modify Phillips based on Rowe “in order to allow players to maintain a casino based funding source free from bank transactions and any associated fees that is also not necessarily tied to a particular player,” e.g., through the use of a family account that allows individuals to maintain “individual casino loyalty accounts for tracking loyalty awards and such.” Id. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings with respect to the rejection of claim 1. See Final Act. 2-4; see also Ans. 9-16. As discussed below, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection by Appellant’s arguments. Appellant argues that neither Nguyen nor Rowe cures the deficiencies of Phillips. Appeal Br. 10. In support, Appellant first asserts that Nguyen does not include transfer of funds from a gaming establishment cashless system. Id. Rather, Appellant states that Nguyen discloses using a third party server to transfer funds from a banking system to the gaming machine. Id. Appellant also acknowledges that Nguyen teaches transferring credits from a player tracking account, but the claim requires that the transfer must Appeal 2021-004255 Application 15/342,799 5 be from a gaming establishment cashless system that is distinct from a player tracking system. Id. at 11. Thus, Appellant asserts that “none of the fund transfers disclosed in Nguyen include a cashless and ticketless transfer of any funds from a gaming establishment cashless system (that is distinct from a player tracking system) to a gaming machine.” Id. Appellant’s statements regarding Nguyen individually are not persuasive of error. The Examiner relies on Nguyen for disclosing the use of “a cashless and ticketless transfer of funds from the gaming establishment cashless system to the gaming machine and where the cashless funds transfer is communicated to the secondary controller remote from the gaming machine.” Final Act. 3. Although the Examiner relies on Nguyen’s disclosure of using a “player tracking number” as a gaming establishment cashless system generally for the source of funds, the Examiner acknowledges that this cannot be the funding source as claimed, which requires that the recited gaming establishment cashless system is distinct from a player tracking system. Id. at 3-4. Thus, the Examiner only relies on Nguyen for teaching transfer of funds from a gaming establishment cashless system generally and not specifically as claimed, and acknowledging this shortcoming in Nguyen; the Examiner relies on Rowe as teaching that a gaming establishment cashless system may be distinct from a player tracking system, as required by the claim. Id. at 4. Regarding Rowe, Appellant argues that Rowe teaches only the transfer of funds “from the gaming machine to one of the different types of listed accounts,” and thus, “Rowe’s transfer flows in the opposite direction,” than that claimed. Appeal Br. 11. Regardless of whether this is the case, it does not identify any error in the rejection. As noted above, the Examiner Appeal 2021-004255 Application 15/342,799 6 relies on Rowe only to show the various types of accounts that may be used in the transfer of funds, rather than relying on the particular process of transfer disclosed by Rowe. Appellant also raises various arguments in the Reply Brief. See Reply Br. 2-6. Appellant first argues that the rejection is improper because it is “premised on modifying a modified reference.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant also argues that the reasoning provided in the rejection is not sufficient to support the obviousness rejection of the independent claims. Id. at 3-4. We fail to see how these arguments are responsive to any new argument or issue specifically raised in the Examiner’s Answer, and Appellant has not explained why there is good cause to raise them in the Reply Brief. Thus, they will not be considered for purposes of the present appeal. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Appellant further argues that the Examiner erred by first interpreting Nguyen as teaching a gaming establishment cashless system and then allegedly altering “the interpretation [of the claim] mid-analysis to the casino account of Rowe being the claimed gaming establishment cashless system.” Reply Br. 4-5. Further, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation of the gaming establishment cashless system is improper, whether it is based on the Examiner’s findings with respect to Nguyen or the Examiner’s findings with respect to Rowe. Id. at 5-6. We are not persuaded. Regarding the Examiner’s reliance on Nguyen, the Examiner first explains in the Answer that almost any funding source could be within the scope of “a gaming establishment cashless system” because it is claimed and Appeal 2021-004255 Application 15/342,799 7 described in the Specification only generically. Ans. 10. We agree with the Examiner. The claim does not provide any specific limitation as to what a gaming establishment cashless system is other than that it is related to a gaming establishment and is distinct from a player tracking system. Further, the Specification only discloses a “cashless system” in paragraph 196, disclosing only that “a first gaming machine can be configured to interface with a wide area progressive system, a player tracking system and a cashless system while a second gaming machine can be configured to communicate with only a cashless system.” Further, the Examiner explains that, given this generic use of the term “gaming establishment cashless system,” the funding sources disclosed by Nguyen may be considered as part of a gaming establishment cashless system because they are cashless and used by the gaming establishment. Ans. 12. Thus, as explained above, the Examiner relies on Nguyen as teaching a transfer via a gaming establishment cashless system, but acknowledges that Nguyen does not specifically teach that this system is distinct from the player tracking account. Regarding Rowe, the Examiner further explains that Rowe teaches examples of accessible accounts by a player in a casino including “a bank account, a credit card account, a debit card account, a casino account, a loyalty program account and a clearinghouse account.” Ans. 13 (citing Rowe ¶ 162). Thus, the Examiner explains that Rowe teaches that a casino account is distinct from a player tracking account, and may considered a gaming establishment cashless system. Id. Regarding the Examiner’s reliance on Rowe, Appellant asserts that Rowe does not “teach or suggest a mobile device facilitated cashless and ticketless transfers [sic] of any fund Appeal 2021-004255 Application 15/342,799 8 from the specific casino account to a gaming machine.” Reply Br. 6. However, the Examiner does not rely on Rowe as teaching this, and Appellant does not adequately address the Examiner’s findings and determination regarding Rowe. Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1. Because Appellant does not raise any distinct arguments regarding the rejections of the other claims on appeal, we also are not persuaded of error in the rejections of claims 2, 3, 5-10, and 12-14. See Appeal Br. 12-18. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 1-3, 5- 10, and 12-14. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-14. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13 103 Phillips, Nguyen, Rowe 1-3, 6, 8- 10, 13 5, 12 103 Phillips, Nguyen, Rowe, Nelson 5, 12 7, 14 103 Phillips, Nguyen, Rowe, Motyl 7, 14 Overall Outcome 1-3, 5-10, 12-14 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED