Ex Parte Anderson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2013

10832525 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PETER R. ANDERSON and ERIC M. PRYZBY
____________

Appeal 2011-008858
Application 10/832,525
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008858
Application 10/832,525

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1, 5, 19, 21 to 24, 26 to 28, 30 to 32, and 34 to
39. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A gaming machine to conduct a wagering game,
comprising:
an animatronic figure;
a memory structure for storing a single audio file
associated with the wagering game, the audio file including a
marker, an audio sequence, and an association table including
an association between the marker and a movement of the
animatronic figure; and
a controller operative to access the audio file, read the
marker from the audio file, play the audio sequence, access the
association table to obtain the movement associated with the
marker, and initiate the movement of the animatronic figure in
response to detecting the position in the audio sequence
corresponding to the marker, the movement being pre-
associated with the marker.

Appellants appeal the following rejection:
1. Claims 1, 5, 19, 21 to 24, 26 to 28, 30 to 32, and 34 to 39 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Smith (US 5,701,511; iss. Dec. 23,
1997) and Seelig (US 2004/0147300 A1; pub. Jul. 29, 2004).

Appeal 2011-008858
Application 10/832,525

3
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because Smith does not
disclose an association table including association between the marker and a
movement of an animatronic figure, and a controller that accesses the
association table to obtain the movement associated with the marker?

ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that Smith does not disclose a single audio file
having an association table as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner relies on Smith at column 1, lines 29 to 30, lines 38 to
41, and Figure 4 for teaching an association table as claimed (Ans. 6 to 7).
We find that Smith discloses and depicts, in Figure 4, a single audio
file that includes timing marks 54, which serve as references for
synchronizing other concurrent elements of a multimedia work with the
audio track (Col. 1, ll. 35 to 41). Smith further discloses that the CPU 23
uses the timing mark ticks to reference the portion of the audio data
currently playing, so that a corresponding portion of the multimedia work
will execute concurrently (Col. 6, ll. 16 to 27).
We agree with the Examiner that the causal relationship between the
tick markers and elements of the multimedia work is a teaching of an
association table as claimed. In our view, the CPU 23 must access an
association table in order to determine which timing mark is associated with
which portion of the multimedia work.
In regard to the Appellants’ argument that Smith either discloses a
single audio file with no association table, which is depicted in Figure 4, and
an association table that is not contained in a single file, we note that the
Appeal 2011-008858
Application 10/832,525

4
Examiner is relying on the teaching in Smith relative to Figure 4, and not on
the teaching depicted in Figure 5. As we found above, Smith teaches and
depicts in Figure 4 an association file as claimed.
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ arguments directed to the teachings of Selig alone, because the
rejection is based on the combined teachings of Smith and Selig.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1.
We will also sustain the rejection of claims 19, 24, 28, 32, 37, and 38,
because the arguments advanced by the Appellants in regard to the
patentability of these claims are directed to the teachings of Selig alone,
whereas the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Smith and Selig.
We will also sustain the rejection as it is directed to the remaining
claims because the Appellants have not argued the separate patentability of
these claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1) (2011).

AFFIRMED
Appeal 2011-008858
Application 10/832,525

5
hh