Ex Parte Dasgupta et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2018

14546012 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2018)

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.
14/546,012 11/18/2014 Ranjan Dasgupta 60020/50018-US 3806
135194 7590 02/28/2018
Miller, Matthias & Hull LLP/Scientific Games, Inc.
One North Franklin
Suite 2350
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
WU, JUNCHUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2018 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):
bmatthias @ millermatthiashull. com
docket @ millermatthiashull. com
ynunez@millermatthiashull.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RANJAN DASGUPTA and
JORGE LUIS SHIMABUKURO
Appeal 2017-008753
Application 14/546,0121
Technology Center 2100
Before: CAROLYN D. THOMAS, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the pending claims in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants’ Brief (“Br.”) identifies Scientific Games, Inc. as the real party
in interest. Br. 3
Appeal 2017-008753
Application 14/546,012
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ claims are directed to electronic gaming machine systems
which provide automated, downloadable operating system upgrades with a
roll back2 capability. Spec. ^ 24. Claims 1,13, and 17 are the independent
claims, and they are reproduced below:
1. A method of installing a second operating system
(OS) on an electronic gaming machine (EGM) already having a
first OS installed, the method comprising:
automatically collecting via a processor from one or more
nonvolatile sources associated with the EGM, a roll back data set
associated with the first OS, and storing the collected roll back
data set in a nonvolatile storage location associated with the
EGM, the roll back data set comprising machine configuration
data and one or more data structures;
downloading the second OS to the EGM over a network
connection between the EGM and a server;
initiating installation of the second OS by the processor;
determining by the processor to roll the EGM back to the
first OS;
automatically retrieving the stored roll back data set by the
processor; and
automatically reverting the EGM to run the first OS based
on the roll back data set.
Br. 12 (Claims Appendix).
13. An electronic gaming machine (EGM) that is
configured to automatically change from using a first operating
system (OS) to using a second OS, the EGM comprising:
one or more nonvolatile data sources associated with the
EGM;
2 We note the term “roll back” is often spelled “rollback” in the context of
computing operations. Appellants’ Specification uses both spellings.
Appellants utilize both spellings in their Brief. Appellants’ claims, however,
uniformly recite “roll back,” which we will utilize herein to maintain
consistency with the language in the claims.
2
Appeal 2017-008753
Application 14/546,012
a network interface from the EGM to an OS server; and
a processor associated with computer-executable
instructions that cause:
collection of a roll back data set from the one or
more nonvolatile data sources;
storing of the collected roll back data set in a
nonvolatile memory location associated with the EGM;
downloading the second OS to the EGM from the
OS server;
initiating installation of the second OS, determining
to roll the EGM back to the first OS; and
automatically reverting the EGM to run the first OS
based on the roll back data set, the roll back data set
including machine configuration data and one or more
data structures associated with the first OS.
Br. 13 (Claims Appendix).
17. A method of installing a configuration on a first
electronic gaming machine (EGM) having existing configuration
data, the method comprising:
receiving at the first EGM from a second EGM, a roll back
data set comprising one or more data structures associated with
an operating system (OS) run by the second EGM; and
automatically reconfiguring the first EGM in accordance
with the roll back data set from the second EGM.
Br. 14 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Morrow US 2005/0044401 A1 Feb. 24, 2005
Walker US 2006/0258422 A1 Nov. 16, 2006
Huomo US 2007/0155505 A1 July 5, 2007
Sylla US 2008/0318658 A1 Dec. 25, 2008
Bytnar US 2010/0298043 A1 Nov. 25,2010
3
Appeal 2017-008753
Application 14/546,012
Chen
Quan
US 7,966,485 B2 June 21, 2011
US 2014/0162793 A1 June 12, 2014
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-6 and 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bytnar and Sylla. Final Act. 2-8.
Claims 7 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bytnar, Sylla, and Chen. Final Act. 8-10.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bytnar, Sylla, and Huomo. Final Act. 10.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bytnar, Sylla, and Walker. Final Act 11.
Claims 10 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bytnar, Sylla, and Morrow. Final Act. 11-12.
Claims 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Quan and Bytnar. Final Act. 12-15.
ISSUES
First Issue: In rejecting independent claims 1 and 13, has the
Examiner erred in finding Bytnar teaches or suggests roll back of an
operating system?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Bytnar, Sylla, and Chen teach or suggest “wherein the trigger event includes
expiration of a periodic timer,” as recited in dependent claims 7 and 15?
Third Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Quan and Bytnar teach
or suggest “a roll back data set comprising one or more data structures
4
Appeal 2017-008753
Application 14/546,012
associated with an operating system (OS),” as recited in independent
claim 17?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments set forth in the Appeal Brief.3 We are not persuaded of error by
Appellants’ arguments. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI
2010) (precedential). We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 2-17) and (2) the findings, reasons, and explanations set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Brief (Ans.
2-21) and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We
highlight the following for emphasis.
First Issue
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Bytnar teaches
rolling back the operating system in an electronic gaming machine. Br. 6.
More specifically, Appellants argue Bytnar teaches only the use of roll back
after an operating system is successfully initiated. Id. According to
Appellants, because snapshots in Bytnar are only taken of an operating
system after it has been initiated, it is not possible for Bytnar’s system to roll
back to a previous version of the operating system. Br. 6-7. We disagree.
Appellants’ argument focuses on a narrow aspect of Bytnar’s
disclosure, and does not address the entirety of its teachings. Appellants are
correct that in one embodiment Bytnar teaches snapshotting an already
installed operating system in order to preserve a safe state revert to a prior
state. Br. 6 (citing Bytnar]} 51). However, Bytnar teaches other, more
3 No reply brief was filed.
5
Appeal 2017-008753
Application 14/546,012
pertinent embodiments which Appellants’ arguments fail to address. Bytnar
teaches an electronic gaming machine “which may store wagering game
software 132.” Bytnar 16. Bytnar further teaches “wagering game
software 132 may include . . . operating system files and other software
associated with a wagering game or the operation of a wagering game
machine.” Id. Thus, Bytnar teaches the software on the wagering game
machine includes the operating system of the device. Bytnar also teaches
“[a] snapshot event may occur when software is upgraded or modified,” and
that in those situations “the upgrade event may cause two snapshots to be
taken, a first snapshot just prior to the upgrade, and a second snapshot after
the upgrade has been successfully completed.” Bytnar 52.
Despite Appellants’ assertions to the contrary, Bytnar teaches taking a
snapshot of the system software prior to an upgrade of that same system
software, and that the “[t]he snapshot may include . . . operating system
software.” Bytnar 56. Bytnar also teaches that the snapshot of the
operating system software may be used to roll back to the previous version
after an upgrade. Id. (“The rollback event may be automatically generated,
for example, in response to a hardware failure or an upgrade failure.”)
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Bytnar
teaches or suggests roll back of an operating system, and we sustain the
rejections of independent claims 1 and 13.
Second Issue
Appellants argue separately for patentability of dependent claims 7
and 15. Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the trigger event includes
expiration of a periodic timer.” Br. 12-13 (Claims Appendix). Claim 15
recites the limitation “wherein the trigger event includes one or more of
6
Appeal 2017-008753
Application 14/546,012
expiration of a periodic timer [and other recited events].” Br. 14 (Claims
Appendix).4
In rejecting these claims over the prior art, the Examiner finds Chen
teaches that it was known for trigger events to occur upon the expiration of a
periodic timer. Final Act. 8 (citing Chen col. 12,11. 28-34). The Examiner
concludes it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
to incorporate the periodic timer of Chen into the teachings of Bytnar and
Sylla as a software failure detection mechanism. Id.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Chen teaches only the
use of a periodic timer to detect software faults, but not for the purpose of
collecting rollback data. Br. 8. We are not persuaded by this argument
because it does not address the findings made by the Examiner. As the
Examiner explains, Chen is not relied upon to show “collecting the roll back
data set upon the occurrence of a trigger event.” Rather, Bytnar teaches this
limitation. Ans. 19 (citing Bytnar 32). Appellants do not dispute this
finding. The Examiner relies on Chen only to show that it was known to use
the expiration of a periodic timer as a trigger event. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding. See Chen col. 12,11. 28-34. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner has erred in rejecting dependent claims 7 and 15.
Third Issue
Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 17, which recites a “method of installing a configuration on a first
electronic gaming machine (EGM) having existing configuration data.” The
4 Because the Examiner finds the prior art shows the recited “periodic timer”
of claim 15 we need not and do not address whether the prior art teaches or
suggests the other recited trigger events.
7
Appeal 2017-008753
Application 14/546,012
Examiner rejects claim 17 over the combined teachings of Quan and Bytnar.
Claim 17 differs slightly in scope from the other independent claims in that
it recites receiving “a roll back data set comprising one or more data
structures associated with an operating system (OS)” run by a second EGM.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because Quan teaches only the concept
of restoring application state across devices. Br. 9. Appellants further argue
‘“application state’ is not OS state nor does it reflect OS data,” and the
Examiner is improperly “assuming that Quan’s rollback data includes OS
data structures.” Id.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because they are not
commensurate with the broad scope of the argued limitation. Claim 17
recites the use of a roll back data “comprising one or more data structures
associated with an operating system (OS).” Br. 14 (Claims Appendix).
Thus, under the language of claim 17, the recited “one or more data
structures” need only be “associated with” an operating system to fall within
the scope of the claim. Appellants’ argument presupposes that the recited
data structures must form the operating system itself. However, the broad
language emphasized by Appellants does not impose this requirement.
Rather, the claim requires only that the data structures be associated with the
operating system.
We agree with the Examiner that the application state data in Quan
discloses “one or more data structures associated with an operating system”
because “[bjased on the application state data, an operating system of
another electronic device can recreate the same environment and status of
the application on the other electronic device.” As such, Quan’s the data
structures forming Quan’s application state data are at least “associated
8
Appeal 2017-008753
Application 14/546,012
with,” the operating system under which they are run. Accordingly, we are
not persuaded the Examiner has erred in finding Quan teaches or suggests
the recited “a roll back data set comprising one or more data structures
associated with an operating system (OS),” and we sustain the rejection of
claim 17.
Remaining Claims
Appellants present no separate argument for the remaining claims. As
such, these claims fall along with their respective independent claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20.
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9