Ex Parte Veenker

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2013

11207307 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2013)

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.
11/207,307 08/19/2005 INV001Brian Veenker 247079-000395USPT 6620
70243 7590 03/18/2013
NIXON PEABODY LLP
300 S. Riverside Plaza
16th Floor
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
MYHR, JUSTIN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3714
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/18/2013 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 BRIAN VEENKER
____________________

Appeal 2010-010874
Application 11/207,307
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
NEIL A. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010874
Application 11/207,307

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
12 and 14-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The Invention
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “a gaming machine for
implementing a wagering game having a preview feature for successively
displaying winning paylines prior to displaying winning symbol
combinations.” Spec. para. [0002]. Claims 1, 8, and 14 are the independent
claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter (emphasis added):
1. A gaming machine comprising:
a wager-input device for receiving a wager from a player
to play a wagering game;
a display for displaying a plurality of moveable reels
having symbols located thereon during the wagering game, the
symbols indicating a randomly selected outcome selected from
a plurality of outcomes in response to the wager, the plurality of
outcomes including at least a first winning outcome including a
first winning symbol combination along a first active payline
and a second winning outcome including a second winning
symbol combination along a second active payline;
wherein in response to the first winning outcome and the
second winning outcome being achieved, the first active payline
and the second active payline are successively displayed to the
player prior to the first winning symbol combination and the
second winning symbol combination being indicated to the
player.

Appeal 2010-010874
Application 11/207,307

3
Rejections and Evidence Relied Upon
The following rejections are before us on appeal:
1. Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14-16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kaminkow (US 6,695,696 B1; iss. Feb. 24, 2004) and
Meyer (US 2003/0092487 A1; pub. May 15, 2003).
2. Claims 2, 3, 9, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kaminkow, Meyer, and Suda (US 6,805,632 B2, iss. Oct. 19, 2004).
3. Claims 4, 10, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kaminkow, Meyer, Hecht (US 2003/0073491 A1; pub. Apr. 17, 2003), and
Walker (US 2004/0176157 A1; publ. Sep. 9, 2004).
4. Claims 6, 11, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kaminkow, Meyer, and Walker.1

OPINION
Independent claim 1 is directed to a gaming machine wherein, in
response to the first and second winning outcomes being achieved, the first
and second active paylines are successively displayed to the player, after
which the first and second winning symbol combinations are displayed to
the player. In parity with the claim language, the Specification states that
“[i]n response to the first winning outcome and the second winning outcome
being achieved, the first active payline and the second active payline are
successively displayed to the player before the first winning outcome and the
second winning outcome are indicated to the player.” Spec. para. [0008];

1 Claim 13 has been cancelled. Reply Br. 2. For that reason, the rejections
of claim 13 as obvious over Kaminkow and Meyer and under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 are not before us.
Appeal 2010-010874
Application 11/207,307

4
see also App. Br. 4 (identifying this as the claimed subject matter).
Independent claims 8 and 14 contain similar provisions.
In other words, claim 1 calls for a two-step process of successively
displaying the first and second paylines to the player and then displaying to
the player the first and second winning symbol combinations. The issue in
this appeal is whether the proposed combination discloses this two-step
process.
Each of the four rejections relies at least in part on the Examiner’s
proposed combination of Kaminkow and Meyer. For that proposed
combination, the Examiner found that Kaminkow discloses “paylines being
displayed and then the winning outcome being displayed after.” Ans. 5-6
(citing figs. 6L and 7 and col. 12, ll. 14-20 and col. 12, l. 66 to col. 13, l. 5).
The Examiner also found that Kaminkow discloses backlighting a winning
symbol combination on the payline. Ans. 6-7, 18 (citing col. 13, ll. 9-20).
The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to modify
Kaminkow’s gaming machine “to include the feature of highlighting [by
backlighting] the winning symbol combination outcome on the payline
during the step of displaying the winning outcomes” for the reason that “it is
well known in the art that by highlighting the winning symbol combinations
it makes it easier for the player to see which winning symbol combination
they had (Meyer paragraph [0027]).” Ans. 6-7.
The Examiner’s proposed modification to display the winning
outcome as a winning symbol combination via backlighting relates to what
is displayed and does not relate to the timing of those displays. Therefore,
we examine the Kaminkow reference in light of the Examiner’s finding with
Appeal 2010-010874
Application 11/207,307

5
regard to the sequencing of the display of the active paylines and the
winning outcomes.
Kaminkow discloses an alternative embodiment wherein the display
(replicating display 32) includes a table 96 having a representative 96a
corresponding to each of nine paylines that displays a number 96b
representing the award for the corresponding payline, and a total payout
display 96c. Kaminkow, col. 12, ll. 38-58; figs. 6L, 7. Kaminkow discloses
that the display (replicating display 32) may operate sequentially to display
winning outcomes (numbers 96b) utilizing two techniques.
First, Kaminkow’s display (replicating display 32) can successively
display payout numbers 96b as each payline is sequentially displayed.
Kaminkow, col. 12, l. 66-col. 13, l. 5. This sequencing would display a first
payline and a first winning outcome, followed by display of a second payline
and a second winning outcome. This technique is not a two-step process as
claimed because the second payline is not displayed prior to the first
winning outcome being displayed.
Second, Kaminkow’s display (replicating display 32) can sequentially
display a first and second active payline, and then the winning outcome
(number displays 96b) is displayed “when the game displays the
accumulation of winning paylines.” Kaminkow, col. 13, ll. 1-2; figs 6L, 7.
This disclosure could mean that Kaminkow displays all the active paylines,
followed by display of the winning outcome. However, such sequencing is
not explicitly stated. Further, disclosing that the winning outcome is
displayed “when the game displays the accumulation of winning paylines”
suggests that the winning outcome is displayed simultaneously with display
of the last payline and not prior to, as claimed. Therefore, we agree with
Appeal 2010-010874
Application 11/207,307

6
Appellant that the Examiner has not shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that Kaminkow’s technique is a two-step process as claimed. See
App. Br. 10-18.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-12 and 14-20.

REVERSED

mls