Richard LeBaron

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 17, 2021

2020003028 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 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.
13/049,384 03/16/2011 Richard G. LeBaron 22949US02 (P02398) 1574
153293 7590 02/17/2021
Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. c/o McAndrews et al.
c/o McAndrews Held & Malloy Ltd.
500 West Madison Street
34th Floor
Chicago, IL 60661
EXAMINER
GARNER, WERNER G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/17/2021 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):
mhmpto@mcandrews-ip.com
patents@aristocrat.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RICHARD G. LEBARON

Appeal 2020-003028
Application 13/049,384
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before BRUCE T. WIEDER, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER,
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, 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 1–4, 8–10, 13, 16–23, 26, 27, 30–32,
35, and 37–41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

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 Aristocrat
Technologies Australia Pty Limited. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003028
Application 13/049,384

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification discloses gaming systems including a game play
monitor and a reward controller, wherein the reward controller may maintain
a gameplay total and allocate awards to players including allocating “a
reward to the at least one player when the current game play data total
equals or exceeds the game play data target.” Spec. ¶¶ 7–11.
CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 27 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A gaming system having a plurality of gaming machines,
the gaming system comprising:
a first of said gaming machines having 1) a first credit
input mechanism configured to permit player interaction to
receive a first physical item from a first player representing a first
monetary value for establishing a first credit balance, the first
credit balance being increasable and decreasable based at least
on wagering activity, said first of said gaming machines
configured to generate first game play data associated with the
first player during game play of a first primary game at the first
of said gaming machines in accord with having established the
first credit balance via the first credit input mechanism receiving
the first physical item, and 2) a first game play monitor
configured to monitor the generated first game play data
associated with the first primary game of the first player;
a second of said gaming machines having 1) a second
credit input mechanism configured to permit player interaction
to receive a second physical item representing a second monetary
value for establishing a second credit balance, the second credit
balance being increasable and decreasable based at least on
wagering activity, said second of said gaming machines
configured to generate second game play data associated with a
second player during game play of a second primary game at the
second of said gaming machines in accord with having
established the second credit balance via the second credit input
Appeal 2020-003028
Application 13/049,384

3
mechanism receiving the second physical item, and 2) a second
game play monitor configured to monitor the generated second
game play data associated with the second primary game of the
second player; and
a reward controller, having a network interface configured
to receive the first game play data associated with the first
primary game of the first player from the first of said gaming
machines and the second game play data associated with the
second primary game of the second player from the second of
said gaming machines, the reward controller being configured to
maintain a common game play data target of a common game
associated with both the first game play data received from the
first of said gaming machines and the second game play data
received from the second of said gaming machines, to maintain
a common game play data total of the common game associated
with the first player and the second player, and to contribute both
a first value indicative of the first game play data associated with
the first player and a second value indicative of the second game
play data associated with the second player towards the common
game play data total of the common game, wherein game play of
the common game is concurrent with the game play of the first
primary game and the game play of the second primary game;
and
an electronic display, coupled to both the first of said
gaming machines and the second of said gaming machines, and
configured to display:
a graphical progression of the common game play
data total graphically progressing towards the common
game play data target, wherein the graphical progression
of the common game play data total is continuously
updated, and
a graphical timer configured to visually indicate an
amount of time available for the common game play data
total to exceed the common game play data target, the
graphical timer continuously running during the
concurrent game play of the common game, the first
primary game, and the second primary game; and
Appeal 2020-003028
Application 13/049,384

4
wherein said reward controller is further configured to
allocate a reward to both the first player and the second player
when the common game play data total exceeds the common
game play data target before expiration of said time available.
Appeal Br. 32–34 (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 8, 10, 13, 16–23, 26, 27, 30, 32, 35,
and 37–41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nguyen2 in view
of DeWaal3 and Luciano.4
2. The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Nguyen in view of DeWaal, Luciano, and Acres.5
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Claim 1 recites a gaming system with a reward controller that is
“configured to allocate a reward . . . when the common game play data total
exceeds the common game play data target.” Appeal Br. 32–34.
Independent claim 27 recites a method of gaming in which a reward is
allocated “when the common game play data total exceeds the common
game play data target.” Id. at 37–39. With respect to both claims, the
Examiner finds that DeWaal teaches allocating a reward to players when the
common game play data target is exceeded. Final Act. 9. Specifically, the
Examiner finds that in DeWaal, “if a team’s marker lands on a position in
one of the Prize Zones 76a, 76b, and 76c, one or more of the players on that

2 Nguyen, US 2011/0092271 A1, pub. Apr. 21, 2011.
3 DeWaal, US 2009/0124320 A1, pub. May 14, 2009.
4 Luciano, Jr. et al., US 2009/0082099 A1, pub. Mar. 26, 2009.
5 Acres, US 2009/0247267 A1, pub. Oct. 1, 2009.
Appeal 2020-003028
Application 13/049,384

5
team become eligible to claim the prize associated with that position.” Id.
(citing DeWaal ¶ 133). The Examiner further explains that DeWaal teaches
prize zones that are made up of positions and when a team’s marker lands on
a position in a prize zone, one or more team members become eligible for
the prize associated with that position. Id. at 11 (citing DeWaal Fig. 4a;
¶¶ 133, 134). The Examiner finds that, with reference to Fig. 4a,
One of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that Prize zone 1
begins on the line that identifies the prize of “$50” and extends
to the position below Prize zone 2, which is identified by the
prize of “FREE BUFFET”. In order to be eligible for the prize
in Prize zone 1, the player must “exceed” the position
immediately below “$50”.
Id. at 12. In the Answer, the Examiner explains that each prize zone in
DeWaal has a plurality of positions with an upper and lower boundary,
which “can easily be understood when reading the description in the
specification.” Ans. 5–6.
We are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings noted above.
Appellant argues that the art of record does not teach allocating an award
when a target has been exceeded and DeWaal only teaches that an award is
given when the team’s marker lands on the winning position, i.e., if the
marker exceeds the target, no award is given. Appeal Br. 15. We agree.
The rejection is premised on a finding that DeWaal teaches multiple
positions within a prize zone such that the prize zone constitutes a range of
values with upper and lower limits. According to the Examiner, a winning
team may land on a value that is at or above the lower limit and at or below
the upper limit of this target in order to win a prize. When the team’s
marker is in this range and anywhere above the lower limit, the team is
allocated an award where the game play total exceeds a target total, and in
Appeal 2020-003028
Application 13/049,384

6
that case, the claim limitation at issue would be met. However, we see no
disclosure in DeWaal that supports the Examiner’s position that the prize
zones constitute a range of values such that a team may exceed some value
and still be awarded a prize.
DeWaal discloses a secondary display window 70 that displays
information related to a secondary team game. DeWaal ¶ 133. DeWaal
discloses tracking the progress of multiple teams on this display and that the
game board on this display “includes a plurality of positions 74,” which
include positions in prize zones 76a–76c. Id. DeWaal discloses that if a
team’s marker lands on a position in a prize zone, the prize associated with
that zone is awarded. Id. Although DeWaal discloses that each prize zone
has multiple positions, DeWaal does not appear to disclose that there is a
range of target values in each prize zone. Rather, as seen in the figures, it
appears that each prize zone has multiple positions in order to accommodate
room for displaying each team’s marker in that prize zone. For example,
one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the prize zone for
“$50” in Figure 4A includes five positions, one for teams a–e, respectively.
DeWaal also explains that if too many players join a particular team, “[t]his
could cause the team’s marker to overshoot or otherwise miss a winning
position.” DeWaal ¶ 123. This disclosure further supports our
understanding that DeWaal teaches each team has only a single position in a
prize zone and that overshooting that position will not lead to an award.
The Examiner does not point us to any other disclosure in DeWaal
that indicates the prize zones constitute multiple winning target totals, as the
Examiner’s findings contemplate. And the Examiner does not otherwise
explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
Appeal 2020-003028
Application 13/049,384

7
allocate an award to players that have exceeded a target total, as required by
the claim. Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of error in the rejection
of independent claims 1 and 27. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1 and 27 or dependent claims 2–4, 8, 10, 13, 16–23, 26,
30, 32, 35, and 37–41.
Rejection 2
With respect to the rejection of claims 9 and 31, the Examiner does
not provide further analysis or evidence that would cure the deficiency in the
rejection of the independent claims, as discussed above. Accordingly, we
also do not sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 31.

CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1–4, 8–10, 13, 16–23, 26, 27,
30–32, 35, and 37–41.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 8, 10,
13, 16–23,
26, 27, 30,
32, 35, 37–
41
103 Nguyen, DeWaal,
Luciano
1–4, 8, 10,
13, 16–23,
26, 27, 30,
32, 35, 37–
41
9, 31 103 Nguyen, DeWaal,
Luciano, Acres
9, 31
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 8–10,
13, 16–23,
26, 27, 30–
32, 35, 37–
41

REVERSED