Ex Parte Harris et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 19, 2012

10901014 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2012)

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.
10/901,014 07/28/2004 Ronnie W. Harris MTO.0066P 7649
32856 7590 11/19/2012
WEIDE & MILLER, LTD.
7251 W. LAKE MEAD BLVD.
SUITE 530
LAS VEGAS, NV 89128
EXAMINER
SUHOL, DMITRY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3716
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/19/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RONNIE W. HARRIS and TED GRAV
____________________

Appeal 2010-009004
Application 10/901,014
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009004
Application 10/901,014

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-5. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We reverse.

BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
awarding wins and displaying winning results for game play (Spec., para.
[0002]).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of presenting a game comprising the steps of:
accepting a wager from each of at least two players to
play said game, each wager having a first value defined by one
or more wager credits of a first denomination of a currency;
designating at least one winning outcome for said game
from a plurality of potential outcomes for said game;
associating an award with each winning outcome, the
award associated with each winning outcome having a second
value defined by one or more secondary credits, each secondary
credit having a second denomination of the same currency
which is a fraction of said first denomination, the award
associated with each winning outcome varying depending upon
a size of a wager placed by a player to play said game;
presenting said game to said at least two players, each
player attempting to obtain a winning outcome for said game;
and
awarding to a player receiving a winning outcome said
award associated therewith.

Appeal 2010-009004
Application 10/901,014

3
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Canterbury (US 6,364,314 B1, iss. Apr. 2, 2002).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Canterbury.

ISSUE
The issue of anticipation turns on whether Canterbury discloses
denominations of currency used for wagers that are different from those used
for awards.

FACTUAL FINDINGS
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. Canterbury discloses a player machine with coin entry slot 26 and
bill acceptor 33 in which player may deposit funds. (Col. 2, ll. 28-
52).
2. Canterbury discloses the player machine contains coin tray 34 into
which winnings may be discharged. (Col. 2, ll. 55-57).
3. Canterbury discloses payoff awards for winning wagers based on
odds, and payback percentages applied to the number of betting
units wagered. (Col. 5, ll. 45-62).

ANALYSIS
We are persuaded of error by the Examiner by Appellants’ argument
that Canterbury discloses that wagers are placed in a denomination of
currency and awards are paid in that same denomination. App. Br. 11.
Appeal 2010-009004
Application 10/901,014

4
Canterbury discloses that wagers may be placed using bills (FF 1) and paid
out to a coin tray (FF 2), but the cited sections of Canterbury (Ans. 3-4, 6-7)
do not disclose a second denomination of awards different from those used
for wagers. Although Canterbury accepts wagers using bills and coins,
which represent different denominations of a currency such as dollars and
cents, Canterbury calculates payoffs only in terms of the single
denomination of “betting units” (FF 3). Since Canterbury does not disclose
a second denomination of currency for awards, we reverse the rejection of
claim 1, and dependent claims 2-5.

DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and
claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

REVERSED

hh