Ex Parte Wachtfogel et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 21, 201310495724 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DAVID MORDECHAI WACHTFOGEL and REUVEN WACHTFOGEL ____________ Appeal 2011-013472 Application 10/495,724 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-013472 Application 10/495,724 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE David Mordechai Wachtfogel and Reuven Wachtfogel (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 101, 103, 107-116, 118, 122-128, and 131. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claimed Subject Matter Claims 101, 116, and 131 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 101 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below. 101. A secure offline interactive gambling system comprising: a subscriber unit operative to insecurely store an offline interactive gambling application including all rules governing execution of the offline interactive gambling application, and, through interaction with a user, to execute the offline interactive gambling application; and a secure processor in or removably insertable in the subscriber unit so as to be operatively associated with the subscriber unit, the secure processor comprising: a random gambling input generator operative to randomly or pseudo-randomly generate a gambling input to the offline interactive gambling application during execution of the offline interactive gambling application, and a secure memory operatively associated with the random gambling input generator, the secure memory being operative to securely store information related to the execution of the offline interactive gambling application, said information comprising information from which at least one result of the offline interactive gambling application can be derived, said information related to the execution of the off1ine interactive gambling application comprising: a log of the gambling input generated during the execution of the offline interactive gambling application; and Appeal 2011-013472 Application 10/495,724 3 a log of at least some of the user selections made in response to the gambling input during the execution of the offline interactive gambling application; and a communication interface operatively associated with the subscriber unit and the secure processor, the communication interface being operative to securely transmit the information related to the execution of the offline interactive gambling application. App. Br. 20-21, Claims App’x. References The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references: Koza US 4,652,998 Mar. 24, 1987 Schneier US 5,871,398 Feb. 16, 1999 Rejection Appellants seek review of the following rejection: I. Claims 101, 103, 107-116, 118, 122-128, and 131 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schneier and Koza. SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. OPINION The Examiner concluded that the combination of Schneier and Koza would have rendered obvious the subject matter of claims 101, 103, 107-116, 118, 122-128, and 131 to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Ans. 5-8. The Examiner found that Schneier discloses the elements of the claims 101, 116, and 131, but “fails to disclose a subscriber unit including a secure processor in or removably insertable in the subscriber Appeal 2011-013472 Application 10/495,724 4 unit and including a random number generator therein.” Id. at 8. The Examiner found that Koza “teaches the use of a random number generator located at a remote gaming terminal (20), a central controller (24), or by [sic] both.” Id. (citing Koza, Abstract). The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to “modify Schneier with the location of the random number generator within a subscriber unit as taught by Koza, in order to ensure equal distribution of prizes among various subscriber units.” Id. (citing Koza, Abstract). Appellants raise several arguments in response to the rejection, including that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated by Koza to modify the teachings of Schneier such that the location of the random number generator is within a subscriber unit rather than the Central Management Computer. See App. Br. 9-16. We agree. First, as Appellants contend, the Examiner’s reliance on Koza as providing a reason prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the location of the random number generator within a subscriber unit is misplaced. Koza explains that an equal distribution of prize awards to each remote game terminal is ensured by random shuffling of a set of prize awards among a predetermined pool of plays for each remote game terminal. Koza, Abstract. Koza explains that “[t]he shuffling of prizes is based upon a random seed produced either by the remote terminal of the central controller or by both.” Id.; see id. at col. 1, ll. 29-31 (“To improve fairness in such a system a pool prize structure can be used to ensure that lottery prize awards are adequately distributed among the game terminals.”). But, the Examiner has not shown where Koza expresses a preference for the remote terminal as Appeal 2011-013472 Application 10/495,724 5 opposed to the central controller, as the Examiner appears to assume. See Ans. 8 (relying solely on Koza’s Abstract). Thus, the Examiner’s finding that, “[i]n fact, Koza expressly discloses that the local generation of gaming outcomes is desirable to [sic] in order to ensure1 [sic] (e.g., see final sentence of Koza’s ABSTRACT; see also column 1, lines 29-31)” (Ans. 9) is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.2 Further, we agree with Appellants that Schneier expressly describes the shortcomings in the Koza system and expressly distinguishes its system from Koza. Reply Br. 4 (citing Schneier, col. 4, ll. 1-44 (disclosing, inter alia, that Koza’s system “has significant limitations” and that “[i]t is therefore desirable to provide an offline system . . . where the managing authority is not at risk of being cheated since there are no secrets stored in the device”)). Additionally, as Appellants aptly explained, Schneier is replete with instances indicating the importance of predetermining the outcome at the central management computer rather than locally. See, e.g., App. Br. 11-12 (citing Schneier, col. 1, ll. 10-19, col. 4, ll. 35-38, col. 5, l. 67 - col. 6, l. 5, col. 6, ll. 9-15, col. 7, ll. 42-46, col. 9, ll. 35-39, col. 4, ll. 42-44, col. 15, ll. 40-42, col. 27, ll. 10-14, col. 15, ll. 45-55). In light of Schneier’s overwhelming preference for the central management computer 1 The Examiner’s finding appears to be incomplete, but in light of the Examiner’s previous statements, it appears the Examiner meant to state that Koza expressly discloses that the local generation of gaming outcomes is desirable in order to ensure adequate distribution of prize awards. 2 In response to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner states that “the prior art is replete with instances and reasons for generating gaming outcomes locally.” Ans. 9. The rejection of claims 17-27, however, is based on the teachings of Schneier and Koza, not on other prior art references that are not before us. Appeal 2011-013472 Application 10/495,724 6 and Schneier’s treatment of Koza, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been discouraged from modifying Schneier to include the location of the random number generator within a subscriber unit as taught by Koza. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 101, 103, 107-116, 118, 122-128, and 131. REVERSED Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation