Ex Parte Wachtfogel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 21, 2013

10495724 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2013)

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