Ex Parte Fisher et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2018

14727164 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/727,164 06/01/2015
63710 7590 11/30/2018
INNOVATION DIVISION
CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P.
110 EAST 59TH STREET (6TH FLOOR)
NEW YORK, NY 10022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Donald Fisher
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
06-8069-CIP2-C2 6424
EXAMINER
LAYNO, BENJAMIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2018 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):
patentdocketing@cantor.com
lkorovich@cantor.com
phowe@cantor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DONALD FISHER, MELISSA S. LANG TIM,
DOUGLAS KRICH, DARLENE MARIE GARMANN, and
STEPHEN FOOTE 1
Appeal2018-004543
Application 14/727, 164
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4--12. 2 We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 CG Technology, L.P. ("Appellant") is the Applicant as provided in
37 C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the rea1 party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claim 3 is cancelled. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
Appeal2018-004543
Application 14/727, 164
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below and is
representative of the claimed subject matter on appeal.
1. A roulette-gaming system, comprising:
a plurality of mechanical roulette wheel assemblies each
comprising a mechanical roulette wheel, and a physical roulette
ball, wherein each of the plurality of mechanical roulette wheel
assemblies is configured for automatic rotation of its respective
mechanical roulette wheel, and is configured for automatic
launching of its respective physical roulette ball, wherein each
mechanical roulette wheel comprises a plurality of ball-receiving
sectors, each ball-receiving sector comprising a select mahjong
symbol, and wherein each roulette ball is receivable in one of the
ball-receiving sectors of a respective mechanical roulette wheel
to provide a respective event outcome;
a plurality of player gaming stations each comprising an
individualized data input terminal that includes a display screen,
wherein the data input terminal is configured for electronic entry
of wagers on event outcomes from one or more of the mechanical
roulette wheel assemblies and to display a player's debits-
credits;
a central processor configured to detect input of data
representing a wager on a combination of mahjong symbols
identified by the physical roulette balls coming to rest within
each respective mechanical roulette wheel assembly;
at least one camera configured to capture images of each
of the roulette wheel assemblies including images of the ball-
receiving sectors and respective mahjong symbols that are
identified by the physical roulette balls coming to rest within
each respective mechanical roulette wheel assembly;
a visual display screen that is physically separate from the
display screens of the data input terminals, wherein the visual
display screen is configured to visually display captured images
of the roulette wheel assemblies and the ball-receiving sectors
and the respective mahjong symbols that are identified by the
physical roulette balls coming to rest within each respective
mechanical roulette wheel assembly; and
2
Appeal2018-004543
Application 14/727, 164
a player participation area comprising the plurality of
player gaming stations for enabling grouped player participation,
wherein the player participation area and the visual display
screen are configurable to create a cinematic type viewing
experience for players such that each respective player
positioned at a given player gaming station can interact with the
respective data input terminal and also view the visual display
screen as in a cinema, wherein the system is further configured
to display the images captured by the at least one camera to
players via displays of mobile devices in use by the players, the
mobile devices being separate from the player gaming stations.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Sher
Ellis
Okada
us 5,755,440
US 2006/0178191 Al
US 2008/0085756 Al
REJECTIONS
May 26, 1998
Aug. 10, 2006
Apr. 10, 2008
I. Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 9, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Ellis and Okada. Final Act. 2-8.
II. Claims 7, 8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Ellis, Okada, and Sher. Id. at 9.
OPINION
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Ellis teaches "a roulette gaming system
comprising plurality of mechanical roulette wheel assemblies 23, Fig. 4,
paragraph [0106]." Final Act. 2 (boldface omitted). The Examiner finds
3
Appeal2018-004543
Application 14/727, 164
that "[e]ach of the mechanical wheels comprises a plurality of ball-receiving
sectors, each ball[-]receiving sector comprises a select wheel symbol." Id. at
3 ( citing Ellis, Fig. 2, ,r 92). The Examiner also finds that Ellis' "ball
receiving sector[ s] comprise[] numbers from 1-36, 'O' and '00', see Fig. 2,
while ... the claimed invention comprises 'mahjong symbols."' Id. at 5
(boldface omitted). However, the Examiner finds that "[t]his difference
between Ellis' numbers 1-36, 0, 00 and the claimed invention of 'mahjong
symbols' resides in the meaning and information conveyed by printed
matter." Id. (boldface omitted and italics added). Referring to In re Gulack,
703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the Examiner explains that, in the instant
case, "there is no novel or unobvious functional relationship between the
printed matter (e.g. 'mahjong symbols') and the substrate (e.g. 'ball
receiving sectors') which is required for patentability." Id. at 5---6.
Appellant argues that "Ellis does not teach or suggest a combination
of mahjong symbols as claimed in the instant case." Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant asserts that, "[a]s with the claims of In re Gulack, the instant
claims also recite a functional relationship between the mahjong symbols
and the surface on which they are imprinted." Id. at 11. According to
Appellant, "there is a new and non-obvious functional relationship between
the mahjong symbols and the ball receiving sectors." Id. This argument is
unpersuasive.
The printed matter (i.e., the mahjong symbol) does not depend on the
substrate (i.e., the ball-receiving sectors of the roulette wheels), nor do the
ball-receiving sectors of the roulette wheel depend on the specific content of
mahjong symbols. Indeed, the particular symbol used on the ball-receiving
sectors of the roulette wheels appears to be arbitrary in that Ellis explicitly
4
Appeal2018-004543
Application 14/727, 164
recognizes that "non-standard symbols" may be used. Ellis ,r 18. In this
respect, the present case is distinguished from Gulack where the court found
the claimed invention "require[ d] a particular sequence of digits to be
displayed on the outside surface of a band," and that "[t]hese digits are
related to the band in two ways: (1) the band supports the digits; and (2)
there is an endless sequence of digits----each digit residing in a unique
position with respect to every other digit in an endless loop. Thus, the digits
exploit the endless nature of the band." Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386-87. In
short, Appellant has not adequately explained how the particular symbol is
in any way dependent on the substrate on which it appears or how the
substrate is in any way dependent on the symbol that appears on it, in order
to establish a functional relationship between the printed matter and its
substrate.
Further, in Gulack, the Federal Circuit stated that "the critical question
is whether there exists any new and unob-vious functional relationship
between the printed matter and the substrate." Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386
( emphasis added). Appellant argues that "the central processor detects the
imprinted mahjong symbols so that the central processor can determine
whether a winning combination of mal1}ong symbols occurred," suggesting
that this provides "a new and non-obvious functional relationship between
the mahjong symbols and the ball receiving sectors." Appeal Br. 11
( emphasis added). Even assuming that there is a functional relationship
between the claimed mahjong symbols (printed matter) and the roulette
wheel ball-receiving sectors (substrate) in that the symbols imprinted on the
sectors convey information identifying the sector in which a ball lands (i.e.,
for the purpose of betting and determining winning combinations), we are
5
Appeal2018-004543
Application 14/727, 164
not persuaded that this functional relationship is new and unobvious from the
subject matter of the cited prior art. In particular, Ellis evidences that this
functional relationship is not new and unobvious. Ellis teaches that each
ball-receiving sector (slot) of a roulette wheel has a number or symbol
associated therewith, which players use to place bets based on the particular
slot that a ball will land. Ellis ,r,r 18, 25. Ellis also teaches that multiple
roulette wheels can be used together with bets being placed across a number
of wheels and that "a win event may be based on the results across a number
of the roulette wheels." Id. ,r,r 24--26, 28. The only difference between the
printed matter of Ellis (i.e., nurnbers or symbols) and the claimed printed
matter (i.e., mahjong symbols) is the exact indicia used to identify the ball-
receiving sectors of the roulette wheels in which a ball lands for purposes of
betting and determining winning combinations. Appellant has not offered
any evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to explain why using
mahjong symbols-as opposed to numbers or other symbols-as the
particular indicia imprinted on the ball-receiving sectors results in a new and
nonobvious functional relationship.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in
the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness with respect to independent claim
1. We sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, and its dependent claims
2, 4--6, 9, 11, and 12, for which Appellant relies on the same arguments (id.
at 12), under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ellis and Okada.
Re} ection II
Appellant relies on the same arguments and reasoning we found
unpersuasive in connection with independent claim 1 as the basis for
contesting the rejection of dependent claims 7, 8, and 10. Id. Accordingly,
6
Appeal2018-004543
Application 14/727, 164
for the same reasons discussed above in connection with the rejection of
claim 1, we also sustain the rejection of claims 7, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ellis, Okada, and Sher.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4---6, 9, 11, and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ellis and Okada is
AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 7, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ellis, Okada, and Sher is AFFIRMED.
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
7