Ex Parte GauselmannDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 12, 201310871395 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/871,395 06/17/2004 Michael Gauselmann ATR-A-124 2972 32566 7590 06/12/2013 PATENT LAW GROUP LLP 465 Fairchild Drive Suite 125 Mountain View, CA 94043 EXAMINER YOO, JASSON H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3718 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/12/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MICHAEL GAUSELMANN ____________ Appeal 2011-006085 Application 10/871,395 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JAMES P. CALVE, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-006085 Application 10/871,395 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7-11, and 14-16. App. Br. 2. Claims 2, 5, 6, 12, 13, and 17- 25 are cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below: 1. A method performed by a gaming machine for use in a casino, the gaming machine having a main video screen controlled by a game controller board, the game controller board containing a memory and a processor for carrying out a game routine to play a game, the method comprising: receiving a wager by the gaming machine for playing a first game; carrying out the first game routine by the game controller board; displaying the first game carried out by the game controller board on the main video screen of the gaming machine; processing non-game information by the game controller board transmitted to the game controller board by an external server; displaying on the main video screen, upon detecting a triggering event, a popup window displaying the non-game information unrelated to the first game being displayed after the non-game information is processed by the game controller board, the game controller board controlling a timing of the display of the pop-up window such that the pop-up window occurs only after the first game is finished and prior to a next game being initiated, the next game occurring after the first game without any games occurring in-between; canceling the pop-up window after a certain period of time; and Appeal 2011-006085 Application 10/871,395 3 printing out a ticket documenting the information displayed by the pop-up window. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack for a written description requirement. Ans. 4. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-11, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (WO 00/32286; pub. Jun. 8, 2000) and Spaur (US 2002/0013167 A1; pub. Jan. 31, 2002) and Rowe (US 2003/0013531 A1; pub. Jan. 16, 2003). Ans. 5. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett, Spaur, Rowe, and Amano (US 2002/0035508 A1; pub. Mar. 21, 2002). Ans. 10. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-11, and 14-16 as lacking an adequate written description The Examiner determined that Appellant’s disclosure does not support the limitation “display of the pop-up window such that the pop-up window occurs only after the first game is finished and prior to a next game being initiated” because Appellant’s Specification discloses that a pop-up window may arise at any time during gaming play and does not disclose that a pop- up window occurs only after the first game is finished and prior to a next game being initiated. Ans. 4, 11-12. The Examiner reasoned that although the pop-up window can occur after the first game is finished and prior to a next game being initiated, the pop-up window does not occur only after the first game is finished and prior to a next game being initiated because it can occur at other times such as the middle of the game and Appellant can claim Appeal 2011-006085 Application 10/871,395 4 a single embodiment without using the term “only”. Ans. 4-5, 11-12. Appellant argues that the Specification discloses embodiments where a pop-up window may arise at any time including between games so that a pop-up window does not interfere with a player’s enjoyment of the game. App. Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 1-2. Appellant assert that a skilled artisan would understand that in an embodiment where the pop-up window occurs between games, it does not occur at the times of the alternative embodiments. App. Br. 5. Appellant also argues that a skilled artisan would not interpret the disclosure that a “[t]he pop-up window may arise . . . between games” to include a pop-up window arising during a second game between first and third games because the intent of displaying the pop-up window “between games” is to not irritate a player during game play. Reply Br. 2. Appellant’s disclosure reasonably conveys to a skilled artisan that Appellant had possession of the claimed subject matter of a pop-up window that occurs after the first game is finished and prior to a next game being initiated. Appellant discloses that a pop-up window may appear on a screen when the virtual reels are spinning, during the play of the gaming machine, between games, after a win, or at any other time. Spec. 1, ll. 21-25. Claim 1 is limited to a pop-up window that occurs after a first game is finished and prior to a next game being initiated. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7-11, and 14-16 for lack of an adequate written description. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-11, 14, and 16 as unpatentable over Bennett, Spaur, Rowe Appellant argues claims 1, 3, 4, 7-11, 14, and 16 as a group. App. Br. 6-8. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Claims 3, 4, 7-11, 14, and 16 stand or fall with claim 1. Appeal 2011-006085 Application 10/871,395 5 The Examiner found that Bennett discloses a method for a gaming machine in a casino, the gaming machine including a main screen controlled by a game controller board that carries out a first game routine, displays the first game on the main video screen, processes non-game information (e.g., service information, advertisements, and public service information) that is transmitted to the game controller by an external server, and controls a program that operates an interface/messages, and displays on the main video screen, upon detecting a triggering event, a pop-up window displaying the non-game information that is unrelated to the first game being played. Ans. 5-6 (citing p. 10, l. 12 to p. 12, l. 4; p. 23, ll. 26-31; p. 16, l. 23; p. 18, ll. 19- 28), 15. The Examiner found that Bennett does not explicitly teach that the display of the pop-up window occurs only after the first game is finished and prior to the next game being initiated but implicitly teaches this feature by disclosing that the controller board controls the specific time to display the pop-up window (p. 10, l. 12 to p. 12, l. 4), such as a predetermined trigger, occurrence of one or more game states, or after a specific player activity occurs (p. 11, ll. 10-16; p. 16, ll. 19-20). Ans. 7. The Examiner determined that this step would have been obvious in view of Spaur, which displays a pop-up window of non-gaming information such as advertisements at the end of a first game and prior to a next game being initiated to allow non- gaming information to be viewed without distracting players during game play. Ans. 7-8 (citing paras. [0011, 0055]; figs. 6, 7), 15-17. Appellant argues that Bennett uses a central controller 70 (fig. 11) to control the actions of the user interface (display) on each connected machine and coordinate modes of adjacent machines including when to display non- Appeal 2011-006085 Application 10/871,395 6 game information transmitted by the central controller 70. App. Br. 7. Appellant also argues that there is no suggestion in Bennett that the central controller 70 transmits non-game information to the game control board 110 so that the game control board controls a timing of the display of the pop-up window to occur only after a first game is finished and prior to a next game being initiated. App. Br. 7. These arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings that Bennett discloses that each machine has a game controller (as illustrated in Figure 2) that controls a program that provides non-gaming information to a player and controls the specific time to display a pop-up window with such information based on predetermined triggers, the occurrence of a specific game state, or after a specific player activity occurs as set forth in the Answer. Ans. 7-8 15-17. Bennett also discloses that the user interface can be operated as a separate process to the primary game to act independently of normal machine functions by monitoring the states and functions of the game machine and providing entertainment or information/messaging modes. Bennett, p. 16, ll. 1-23. Bennett’s use of a system controller 70 to communicate with individual gaming machines and control the display of information on those machines to allow coordination of modes for adjacent machines and display results of nearby machines does not negate the fact that each console also has a game controller that provides non-gaming information independent of the central server. See Ans. 7-8. Appellant also argues that Spaur discloses a system in which a game server controls when an ad is displayed on individual client machines and the client machines do not control when to display the ad. App. Br. 7-8. As a result, Appellant argues that Spaur’s system is inappropriate for a casino Appeal 2011-006085 Application 10/871,395 7 where games are controlled by the gaming machines. Id. at 8. These arguments are not persuasive because the Examiner has relied on Bennett to disclose a system in which a game controller on a gaming console controls the display of non-gaming information on individual machines and Spaur to teach that pop-up windows with such information can be displayed at the end of a game and before the beginning of a next game. Spaur, paras. [0011, 0055]; figs. 6, 7. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of references suggest to a skilled artisan. Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s findings or conclusion of obviousness. As such, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7-11, 14, and 16. Claim 15 as unpatentable over Bennett, Spaur, Rowe, and Amano Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance on Amano to disclose incentive points to those who view ads, as recited in claim 15, does not make claim 1 obvious. App. Br. 8. Because we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Bennett, Spaur, and Rowe, this argument is not persuasive. We sustain the rejection of claim 15. DECISION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7-11, and 14-16 for lack of an adequate written description and AFFIRM the prior art rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 7-11, and 14-16. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED rvb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation