Nguyen Gaming LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 10, 2021

2021001847 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2021)

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.
15/427,308 02/08/2017 Binh T. Nguyen 902-P016C1 3097
68803 7590 09/10/2021
TI Law Group, PC
1055 E Brokaw Road
Suite 30-355
San Jose, CA 95131-2116
EXAMINER
GALKA, LAWRENCE STEFAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/10/2021 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):
TILGDocket@yahoo.com
aspence@tipatents.com
dthomas@tipatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BINH T. NGUYEN and DARRELL RILETT
____________

Appeal 2021-001847
Application 15/427,308
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1–9. 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 inventors as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-001847
Application 15/427,308
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a “Configurable Virtual Gaming
Zone.” Spec., Title. Claims 1 and 9 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for configuring zone-based gaming activity
within a gaming establishment, the method comprising:

setting, by a zone controller, a location within the gaming
establishment for the zone-based gaming activity, the location
being at least one defined region within the gaming
establishment;
configuring, by the zone controller, a virtual gaming zone
for the location within the gaming establishment for the zone-
based gaming activity;
identifying, by at least one location tracker, one or more
gaming devices that are within the virtual gaming zone;
updating at predetermined time intervals, by the at least
one location tracker, a device location of the one or more
gaming devices;
determining if the updated device location of the one or
more gaming devices is located within the virtual gaming zone;
permitting, by a gaming server, the identified one or
more gaming devices that are within the virtual gaming zone to
participate in the zone-based gaming activity; and
denying, by the gaming server, participation in the zone-
based gaming activity if it is determined that the updated device
location of the one or more gaming devices is not located
within the virtual gaming zone.

Appeal 2021-001847
Application 15/427,308
3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Name Reference(s) Date
Howington US 2002/0152120 A1 Oct. 17, 2002
Bryant US 2004/0038736 A1 Feb. 26, 2004
Oberberger US 2006/0252530 A1 Nov. 9, 2006
Burke US 2010/0081509 A1 Apr. 1, 2010
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claims 1–3 and 7–9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Burke, Howington, and
Oberberger.
II. Claims 4–6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Burke, Howington, Oberberger, and
Bryant.
OPINION
Rejection I
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Burke
discloses a method comprising, inter alia: setting a location within a gaming
establishment for zone-based gaming activity (i.e., “selection [] on a floor
map [of machines]”) (citing Burke ¶¶ 104, 127, Fig. 11A); configuring a
virtual gaming zone for the location (i.e., “select[ing] . . . rules for content
on machines [in a] . . . geographic location”) (citing id. ¶¶ 104, 127);
identifying gaming devices within the virtual gaming zone (i.e., “the system
tracks the location of devices by showing them on the screen in a map
1104”) (citing id. ¶ 127); and permitting or denying the identified gaming
Appeal 2021-001847
Application 15/427,308
4
devices participation in the zone-based gaming activity based on the location
of gaming device being within or without the virtual gaming zone (i.e.,
“turning on bonus events for the selected area by the controlling computer”)
(citing id. ¶ 128, Fig. 11b). Final Act. 2–3.
The Examiner determines that Burke does not disclose updating, at
predetermined time intervals, the location of the gaming devices, as required
by claim 1, and the Examiner relies on Howington for disclosing “a gaming
machine tracking and location system whereby the location of gaming
machines are updated periodically by a location tracker for display of an
overview of the casino.” Final Act. 3 (citing Howington ¶¶ 40–44
(emphases added)). The Examiner finds that
[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the
advantages of automatically updating the system of the locations
of gaming machines periodically to account for any alterations,
relocations and replacements on the gaming floor and thereby
being associated with the drawn zones around that area and
neighboring machines to include the relevant gaming machines
to automate the maintenance of the gaming system.
Final Act. 3–4. Thus, the Examiner proposes modifying Burke, in view of
Howington, to update Burke’s gaming machine locations, for example, “to
automate the maintenance of the gaming system.” Id. at 4.
The Examiner determines that Burke, as modified by Howington,
does not disclose that “the periodic updating is at predetermined time
intervals,” as required by claim 1, and the Examiner relies on Oberberger for
disclosing “a casino management system where mobile devices in the
system are tracked and locations are updated using a variety of triggers
including schedule or periodic intervals, on demand, change in location,
etc.” Final Act. 4 (citing Oberberger ¶ 154 (emphasis added)). The
Appeal 2021-001847
Application 15/427,308
5
Examiner also finds that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized this list of known options for triggering updates to a casino
management system in order to keep the data in the system relevant and
accurate.” Id. The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to
have modified Burke, as modified by Howington, in further view of
Oberberger, “to have used scheduled intervals to update the data . . .
producing the expected result of a management system with up to date
information and thereby allowing the system to operate effectively.” Id. at
4–5.
First, Appellant argues that “Oberberger teaches that its displayed
information may be updated at periodic intervals and does not teach or
suggest that the location of the mobile device (MD) is updated at periodic
intervals.” Appeal Br. 7.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument, which fails to address
the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. As relied on by the Examiner,
and with reference to Burke’s Figures 11A and 11B, Burke depicts selecting
(or identifying) wagering game machines 1110 in the map 1104, which may
include specific bonus events (or games in a gaming zone). See Burke
¶¶ 127, 128. Figure 11A of Burke is reproduced below.
Appeal 2021-001847
Application 15/427,308
6

Figure 11A of Burke shows “a graphical user interface through which an
operator can select wagering game machines,” and more specifically, a
matrix of wagering game machines 1110 on a casino floor map 1104,
wherein a rectangle depicted as a dashed line indicates a selection area 1106
about a subset of the wagering game machines within the matrix. Burke ¶
40. The Examiner relies on Howington for disclosing updating a gaming
device’s location: “[w]hen a machine is located or moved within the casino,
its new location is reported to the management system” (Howington ¶ 43),
and on Oberberger for disclosing triggering updates to a casino management
system based on periodic intervals: “displayed information may be updated
. . . based on a variety of conditions such as . . . at scheduled and/or periodic
intervals” (Oberberger ¶ 154). Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of
error in these findings, or challenge the Examiner’s reasoning for modifying
Burke, in view of Howington, to automate the task of updating the casino
management system to account for the relocation of a machine, or in view of
Oberberger to update such information at predetermined time intervals.
Appeal 2021-001847
Application 15/427,308
7
Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also Ans. 3.
Next, Appellant argues that because the Examiner’s combination of
Burke, Howington, and Oberberger does not teach “‘updating at
predetermined time intervals … a device location of one or more gaming
devices,’” the Examiner’s combination cannot teach “‘determining if the
updated device location of the one or more gaming devices is located within
the virtual gaming zone,’” as claimed. Appeal Br. 8. However, as discussed
supra, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s combination of Burke,
Howington, and Oberberger to arrive at the claim limitation of updating, at
predetermined time intervals, the location of a gaming device.
Appellant further argues that, in Burke, “there is no ‘updated device
location’ much less ‘determining if the updated device location of the one or
more gaming devices is located within the virtual gaming zone.’” Id.; see
also Reply Br. 2 (“Burke teaches that an operator selects fixed, pre-
positioned gaming machines that are already positioned on the gaming floor
and there is no ‘updated device location’.”). Again, however, the Examiner
relies on Howington, not Burke, for updating the location of gaming
devices. Thus, Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error in the
rejection as articulated by the Examiner.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s combination does not teach
permitting or denying the identified gaming devices from participating in the
zone-based gaming activity based on whether the updated device location is
within or without the virtual gaming zone, because “the location of the
Appeal 2021-001847
Application 15/427,308
8
devices of Burke, Howington, and Oberberger are not updated at
predetermined time intervals and therefore it cannot be determined if the
updated location of the devices are within the virtual gaming zone.” Appeal
Br. 9. This conclusory argument is also unpersuasive, because Appellant
does not specify any alleged errors in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning
for combining the references to result in the claimed subject matter.
Finally, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s combination “would at
best simply result in the ability to update locations of the gaming machines
of Burke, and updating the displayed information on those gaming machines
at predetermined time intervals.” Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 1 (“The
alleged combination of prior art references would, at best, result in updating
the location of tracked devices as well as periodically updating the
information to be displayed on the tracked devices.”).
We disagree with the Appellant’s conclusion. Rather, we agree with
the Examiner that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art, at the time of the invention, that updating Burke’s virtual gaming
zone, as displayed in Figure 11A supra, wherein gaming machines are
allowed to participate in a bonus event (or zone-based gaming activity), to
identify those gaming machines that have been relocated outside of the
virtual gaming zone, as taught in Howington, would predictably result in
those relocated gaming machines being denied participation in the bonus
event that is reserved for those gaming machines inside of the virtual gaming
zone. See e.g., Burke ¶ 128 (disclosing that for the selected machines, bonus
events may be enabled). Notably, the Examiner’s proposed combination
does not involve bodily incorporating Howington’s disclosure, to the extent
Appeal 2021-001847
Application 15/427,308
9
it is limited to tracking mobile gaming devices for the purpose of displaying
information on the tracked devices.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1. Appellant recites the limitations of dependent claims 2, 3, 7, and 8,
which depend from independent claim 1, and also the limitations of
independent claim 9, and relies on the arguments presented supra for claim 1
for the patentability of these claims. Appeal Br. 10–15. Notably, statements
that merely point out what a claim recites are not considered to present an
argument for separate patentability of the claim. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(Rule 41.37 requires more than recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the elements are not found in the prior art). Thus, for
essentially the same reasons stated supra for claim 1, we also do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, and 7–9.2
Rejection II
Appellant recites the limitations of dependent claims 4 to 6, which
depend from independent claim 1, and relies on the arguments presented
supra for claim 1 for the patentability of these claims; thus, for essentially

2 Notably, and contrary to the Examiner’s position in the Examiner’s
Answer, we construe independent claim 1 to require an order in which the
recited method steps are performed, due to the antecedent basis included in
the claims, wherein “one or more gaming devices that are within the virtual
gaming zone” are identified, and next, “a device location of the one or more
gaming devices” is updated. Appeal Br., A-1, Claims App. (emphasis
added); Ans. 3–5. Similarly, independent claim 9 recites an electronic
gaming system, wherein a location database is configured to “store a device
location of each of a plurality of gaming devices,” and next, the claim
requires “updat[ing] the device location of each of the plurality of gaming
devices.” Appeal Br., A-3, Claims App. (emphasis added); Ans. 3–5.
Appeal 2021-001847
Application 15/427,308
10
the same reasons stated supra for claim 1, we also do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 to 6. Appeal Br. 15–16.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–9 is affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 7–9 103(a) Burke, Howington,
Oberberger
1–3, 7–9
4–6 103(a) Burke, Howington,
Oberberger, Bryant
4–6
Overall
Outcome
1–9

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED