Ex Parte Samdahl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2016

12220968 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/220,968 07/29/2008
63649 7590 04/01/2016
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC
C/O FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP
26522 LA ALAMEDA A VENUE, SUITE 360
MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Amber Samdahl
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.
0260160 9327
EXAMINER
DORSEY, RENEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2016 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):
docketing@farj ami. com
farjamidocketing@yahoo.com
ffarj ami @farj ami. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMBER SAMDAHL, JONATHAN ACKLEY, and
JOSHUA B. GORIN1
Appeal2014-001274
Application 12/220,968
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-18, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants indicate the real party-in-interest is Disney Enterprises, Inc.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-001274
Application 12/220,968
BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to a Radio Frequency Identification
(RFID) expansion module for portable gaming devices and a system for
providing localized interaction using the RFID expansion module. Spec.
6:1-3.
Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claim Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, reads as follows (disputed limitations in italics):
1. A radio-frequency identification (RFID) expansion
module for use by a portable gaming device, the RFID
expansion module comprising:
an interface connector connectable to the portable gaming
device, the interface connector including a power link to receive
power and a data link to exchange data;
an RFID tag, the RFID tag including an antenna such that
the RFID tag can supply the antenna with power received from
the power link, the RFID tag further configured to exchange
data using the data link; and
a storage device communicable with the RFID tag;
wherein the RFID tag is configured to communicate with a
first RFID reader to determine a location of the portable
gaming device and to provide an updated data state.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wells (US 2007/0155512 Al; July 5, 2007),
Tran (US 2006/0094466 Al; May 4, 2006), and Nguyen (US 2009/0055205
Al; Feb. 26, 2009).
Claims 4, 6, 15, and 17, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wells, Tran, Nguyen, and Barney (US
7,445,550 B2; Nov. 4, 2008).
2
Appeal2014-001274
Application 12/220,968
ANALYSTS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Action, and the arguments in the Reply Brief presented in response to the
Examiner's Answer. We agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner's
findings and conclusions of obviousness. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis below.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, 16, and 18
Appellants argue claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, 16, and 18 together as a group.
Claim 1 is representative of the group. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(l)(iv).
Appellants argue the combination of Wells, Tran, and Nguyen does not
teach, or suggest a "radio-frequency identification (RFID) expansion module
for use by a portable gaming device." App. Br. 7. Specifically, Appellants
contend Wells does not teach or suggest an expansion module for a portable
gaming, comprising an interface connector connectable to the portable
gaming device because Wells discloses large, stationary gaming structures
that remain in a specific location and can include a stand coupled to the
floor. Id. at 8-9 (citing Wells Figs. 1A-2C, i-f 76); see Reply Br. 2-5 (citing
Wells Figs. IA, IB, i-fi-f 70, 76).
To the extent that Appellants argue the expansion module must be
portable, we are not persuaded. Claim 1 only recites a portable gaming
device, and does not include limitations regarding the portability of the
expansion module. We agree with, and adopt the Examiner's findings that
Wells teaches an expansion module 125, as depicted in Figure IB, which
includes an interface connector 127 connectable to portable gaming device
100 (i.e., base module), as depicted in Figure 1 A. See Final Act. 3 (citing
Wells Fig. IB, i-f 73); Ans. 5 (citing Wells Fig. IB, i-f 73). We further
3
Appeal2014-001274
Application 12/220,968
observe that the base module 100 constitutes a portable gaming device
because it is capable of being moved or carried based on Wells's teaching
that "it may be possible to first mount a base gaming module to the bar-top
and then, later remove the base gaming module and couple it to additional
gaming modules to provide a free standing configuration." See Wells i-f 15.
For these same reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellants' related
argument that there is no motivation to use the location tracking of Tran and
Nguyen with Wells's stationary machines. See App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 5.
Appellants further argue the combination of Wells, Tran, and Nguyen
does not teach or suggest an "RFID tag configured to communicate with a
first RFID reader to determine a location of the portable gaming device and
to provide an updated data state," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7.
Specifically, Appellants argue that Nguyen fails to teach or suggest: (1) the
RFID tag is used to provide an updated state; (2) the RFID tag provides an
updated data state; and (3) the RFID tag is configured to provide an updated
data state. App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 3--4. Appellants further contend that
Nguyen's teaching of locating a patron does not correspond to an updated
data state. Reply Br. 4; see App. Br. 11. In that regard, Appellants assert to
"'[to] determine a location of the portable gaming device and to provide an
updated state[]' [are] two completely different features." Reply Br. 4.
As an initial matter, we note that claim 1 does not explicitly require
the RFID tag to be configured "to determine a location of the portable
gaming device and to provide an updated data state." We broadly but
reasonably construe claim 1 to recite that the RFID tag is configured to
communicate with a first RFID reader, and "to determine a location of the
portable gaming device and to provide an updated data state" as a recitation
of an intended purpose of that communication. Claim 1 does not recite
4
Appeal2014-001274
Application 12/220,968
whether the RFTD tag, the RFTD reader, or both the RFTD tag and the RFTD
reader perform the recitation of "to determine a location of the portable
gaming device and to provide an updated data state." Thus, Appellants
arguments that the RFID tag provides or is configured to provide an updated
data state are not commensurate in scope with the claim limitations. We
also are not persuaded by Appellants' conclusory argument without
explanation that patron location data does not correspond to an updated data
state. The broadest, yet reasonable, meaning of "updated data state" does
not preclude the updated data state from including location data.
Accordingly, we agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings
that Nguy en teaches or suggests the disputed claim recitation of claim 1.
See Final Act. 4--5.
For all these reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of
claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, 16, and 18 as unpatentable over Wells, Tran, and
Nguyen.
Claims 4, 6, 15, and 17
Although Appellants present arguments for dependent claims 4, 6, 15,
and 17 under a separate heading, Appellants do not present substantive
argument addressing the limitations of these dependent claims. See App. Br.
11-12. According! y, for the same reasons as claim 1, we are not persuaded
of error in the rejection of claims 4, 6, 15, and 17 as unpatentable over
Wells, Tran, Nguyen, and Barney.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-18.
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).
5
Appeal2014-001274
Application 12/220,968
AFFIRMED
6