Ex Parte Gomez et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 8, 201812667102 (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/667,102 12/29/2009 Benjamin T. Gomez 70243 7590 05/10/2018 NIXON PEABODY LLP 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 247079-000562USPX 4057 EXAMINER 70 West Madison, Suite 3500 HSU, RYAN CHICAGO, IL 60602 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3716 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/10/2018 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): docketingchicago@nixonpeabody.com ipairlink@nixonpeabody.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BENJAMIN T. GOMEZ and ALFRED THOMAS Appeal2017-004632 Application 12/667,102 Technology Center 3700 Before ANTON W. PETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the Examiner's rejection of claims 28, 29, 31-38, and 42--47. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. According to Appellants, the invention "relates generally to gaming machines, and methods for playing wagering games, and more particularly, to a wagering game having hybrid winning outcomes." Spec. i-f 2. 1 According to Appellants, "[ t ]he real party in interest is Bally Gaming, Inc., ... [which] is a wholly owned subsidiary of Scientific Games Corp." Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2017-004632 Application 12/667, 102 Claims 28, 35, and 42 are the independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 28 as illustrative of the appealed claims. 28. A gaming system comprising: a gaming machine primarily used for playing at least one casino wagering game, the gaming machine including a gaming housing, an electronic display device having a display region displaying an array of moveable reels having symbols for indicating a randomly selected outcome of the casino wagering game, and one or more electronic input devices, the electronic display device and the one or more electronic input devices being coupled to the gaming housing, at least one of the one or more input devices being configured to detect a physical item associated with a monetary value that establishes a credit balance, the credit balance changing based on play of the casino wagering game; and one or more controllers configured to: initiate the casino wagering game responsive to a wager of credits from the credit balance; and direct the electronic display device to display the array including a singular like symbol winning combination representing at least a part of the randomly selected game outcome, wherein the like-symbol winning combination comprises a pay line portion including a predetermined number of like symbols along an activated payline and a scatter-pay portion including one or more additional like-symbols displayed elsewhere in the array. 2 Appeal2017-004632 Application 12/667, 102 REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART2 The Examiner rejects claims 28, 31, 33, 34, 42--44, 46, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Jensen (US 8,137,179 B2, iss. Mar. 20, 2012). The Examiner rejects claims 29, 35-38, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jensen. The Examiner rejects claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jensen and Rodgers (US 2006/0030392 Al, pub. Feb. 9, 2006). ANALYSIS Anticipation rejection Independent claim 28 and its dependent claims 31, 33, and 34 Independent claim 28 recites, among other recitations, a controller configured to direct the electronic display device to display the array including a singular like symbol winning combination representing at least a part of the randomly selected game outcome, wherein the like- symbol winning combination comprises a pay line portion 2 It appears that the Answer's Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal section includes typographical errors. See Answer 2. Specifically, the section expressly indicates that the Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 28--47 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and maintains the rejections of claims 28, 29, 31, 33-38, 42, and 44--47 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (see id.), but the section does not indicate whether the Examiner withdraws or maintains the anticipation rejection of claim 43 (see Final Action 10), or the obviousness rejection of claim 32 (see id. at 15). Inasmuch as the Examiner does not indicate withdrawal of these anticipation and obviousness rejections, we understand that the rejections remain pending. See Answer 2 ("Every ground of rejection set forth in the Office [A]ction dated 11/19/15[,] from which the appeal is taken[,] is being maintained by the [E]xaminer[,] except for the grounds of rejection (if any) listed under the subheading 'WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS."'). 3 Appeal2017-004632 Application 12/667, 102 including a predetermined number of like symbols along an activated pay line and a scatter-pay portion including one or more additional like-symbols displayed elsewhere in the array. Appeal Br., Claims App. Appellants' argument, essentially, is that for . . . Jensen . . . to disclose . . . Appellants' "singular like- symbol winning combination," Jensen must teach a winning symbol combination comprised of both ( 1) a pay line portion with a first winning symbol and (2) a scatter-pay portion with at least one additional first winning symbol that is not part of the payline. (id. at 11; see also id. at 11-13), but Jensen's controller is not configured to display such a winning combination (id. at 13-15). Even assuming arguendo, however, that we agree with Appellants' argument regarding the scope of claim 28, we do not agree with Appellants' argument that Jensen fails to disclose a controller configured to display such a winning combination. First, we note that the recitations of claim 35 do not preclude wining combinations other than combinations of both "( 1) a payline portion with a first winning symbol and (2) a scatter-pay portion with at least one additional first winning symbol that is not part of the payline." Restated, Jensen teaches a controller configured as claimed if, for example, in addition to displaying winning combinations with both a payline portion and a scatter-pay portion, the controller displays other winning combinations made up of paylines, and/or winning combinations of scatter- pay portions. This, in essence, is what is disclosed by Jensen's column 9, lines 2-10, on which the Examiner relies to disclose the claimed controller. See, e.g., Answer 3. More specifically, while Jensen does disclose a controller displaying winning combinations of pay lines only, and winning combinations of scatter-pay arrangements, a reasonable reading of the cited portion of Jensen is that "[i]n one embodiment, the gaming device awards prizes after the reels of the primary game stop spinning if specified types 4 Appeal2017-004632 Application 12/667, 102 and/or configurations of indicia or symbols occur on an active payline ... and ... occur in a scatter[ -]pay arrangement." Jensen col. 9, 11. 2-10 (emphasis added). Thus, based on the foregoing, Appellants do not persuade us that the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim 2 8 is in error. Therefore, we sustain claim 28's rejection, as well as the rejection of claims 31, 33, and 34 that depend from claim 28. Independent claim 42 and its dependent claims 43, 44, 46, and47 Appellants argue that the rejection of independent claim 42, and dependent claims 43, 44, 46, and 47, is in error for substantially the same reasons as those set forth above for claim 28. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 42--44, 46, and 47 for substantially the same reasons we sustain claim 28's rejection, supra. Obviousness rejections based solely on Jensen Dependent claims 29 and 45 Claims 29 and 45 depend from independent claims 28 and 42, respectively, and we affirm the independent claims' anticipation rejection based on Jensen, supra. Appellants argue that the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 29 and 45, based solely on Jensen, is in error because although Jensen discusses that gaming systems may use multi-symbol or single-symbol reels, Jensen does not disclose a gaming system having two or more multi-symbol reels, and at least one single-symbol reel, as claimed. Appeal Br. 19-21. We are not persuaded of error, however. We agree with the Examiner that Jensen explicitly states that one or more of the reels are independent reels or unisymbol reels (see col. 9; l[l]. 2-10) .... [T]he teaching of both multi-symbol reels and single-symbol 5 Appeal2017-004632 Application 12/667, 102 reels are known in the art[,] and utilizing different configurations on the display array merely yield the predictable result of increasing the number of possible combinations that may be presented on a display. Answer 9. Restated, we agree with the Examiner that both types of reels are known in the art, and that it would have been obvious to modify Jensen to use one type of reel in place of the other reel, in order to increase the possible combinations that can be presented on the display for each spin of the reels (see Answer 9), so as to provide a gaming system with two or more multi-symbol reels and at least one single-symbol reel, as claimed. Conversely, Appellants do not present evidence or a line of reasoning sufficient to persuade us that something other than a predictable result occurs by using two or more multi-symbol reels with at least one single- symbol reel. Thus, based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claims 29 and 45. Independent claim 3 5 and its dependent claims 3 6-3 8 Appellants argue that the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claim 35 and its dependent claims 36-38 for essentially the same reasons as those set forth above for dependent claims 29 and 45. Appeal Br. 17-19; id. at 19-21. Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of Examiner error, and, therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 35-38. Obviousness rejection based on Jensen and Rodgers Dependent claim 32 Although Appellants refer, in the Appeal Brief, to the Examiner's rejection of claim 32 (see Appeal Br. 17), Appellants do not argue that the Examiner's rejection is in error (see id. at 17-21 ). Thus, inasmuch as Appellants do not persuade us that the Examiner errs, we sustain claim 32's rejection. 6 Appeal2017-004632 Application 12/667, 102 DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's anticipation and obviousness rejections of claims 28, 29, 31-38, and 42--47. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation