Ex Parte Greenberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2017

13382783 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2017)

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.
13/382,783 03/26/2012 Jacob C. Greenberg 100.122US1 2675
65375 7590
BALLY (DELIZIO LAW)
C/O DELIZIO LAW, PLLC
15201 MASON ROAD
SUITE 1000-312
CYPRESS, TX 77433
EXAMINER
MYHR, JUSTIN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2017 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):
US PTO @ DELIZIOLAW.COM
USPT02 @ DELIZIOLAW.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JACOB C. GREENBERG,
TIMOTHY T. GRONKOWSKI, JOHN MICHAEL HOLMES,
TIMOTHY C. LOOSE, MARTIN R. UGARTE, JR., and
MUTHU VELU
Appeal 2016-006337
Application 13/382,783
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1—11, 13—17,
21, and 23—26, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest is identified as WMS Gaming, Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-006337
Application 13/382,783
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed invention relates to systems that control gaming effects
in wagering game networks. Spec. para. 3. Claims 1, 10, 15, and 21 are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject
matter.
1. A computer-implemented method of operating a gaming
system primarily dedicated to providing at least one casino
wagering game, the gaming system including a plurality of
wagering game machines and one or more controllers, the
method comprising:
selecting, by one or more processors of the one or more
controllers, a plurality of content presentation devices for
presentation of a gaming effect, wherein the plurality of content
presentation devices comprise video, sound production or
lighting devices associated with a plurality of wagering game
machines, wherein each of the plurality of content presentation
devices has an identifier, and wherein a portion of the gaming
effect is configured to be synchronized across the plurality of
content presentation devices and the plurality of wagering game
machines, and wherein the portion of the gaming effect is
presented without interruption via the plurality of content
presentation devices during a time interval;
receiving, into a non-transitory machine-readable medium
coupled to the one or more content controllers, presentation
status information for at least one of the plurality of content
presentation devices, wherein the presentation status indicates a
state of availability of the at least one of the video, sound
production or lighting devices;
determining, by the one or more controllers, based on the
presentation status information, that the at least one of the
plurality of content presentation devices is unavailable to present
the portion of the gaming effect during the time interval; and
utilizing, by the one or more processors of the one or more
controllers, the presentation status information and the identifier
for each of the plurality of content presentation devices to
2
Appeal 2016-006337
Application 13/382,783
generate a transmission schedule in the non-transitory machine-
readable medium, that synchronizes timing of transmissions of
content control data for the gaming effect to the plurality of
content presentation devices, wherein the transmission schedule
is configured to schedule content control data to be sent to
eligible content presentation devices using the identifier for each
eligible content presentation device of the eligible content
presentation devices, and wherein the transmission schedule
omits the at least one of the plurality of content presentation
devices that is unavailable to present the portion of the gaming
effect based, at least in part, on the presentation status
information and the identifier of the at least one of the plurality
of content presentation devices that is unavailable to present the
portion of the gaming effect.
Rejection
Claims 1—11, 13—17, 21, and 23—26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments. We concur with Appellants’ argument that the Examiner has not
shown the claims are directed to an abstract idea under step one of the
framework set forth in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134
S. Ct. 2347 (2014). App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner “identified] the underlying abstract idea of the
invention to be the act of determining a transmission plan for a plurality of
devices based on availability.” Ans. 2. The Examiner determines that the
claims are directed to automating a human process or organizing human
activity with respect to gaming. Id. The Examiner also finds “the method
performed is a well-known and well-understood one wherein a check should
3
Appeal 2016-006337
Application 13/382,783
be made to determine if a machine is available before assigning a task
thereby insuring that the assignment is either carried out or not interfered
with.” Ans. 3.
Subsequent to the Examiner’s Answer, the Federal Circuit decided
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Enfish
court determined that the claims in that case were “directed to a specific
implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts,” and,
therefore, not directed to an abstract idea. Id. at 1339. Appellants argue in
the Reply Brief that Enfish applies to the claims on appeal:
As noted above, game developers can face the problem that
controlling content from multiple different sources can be
challenging. The claimed invention is a specific implementation
to a solution to this problem in the game software art. In
particular, independent claims 1, 10, 15 and 21 recite a solution
implemented by a controller that synchronizes the presentation
of a gaming effect on a plurality of available presentation devices
spread across a plurality of wagering game machines, where the
gaming effect is to be presented without interruption. Because
the controller implements the solution, the game developer is
freed from developing all of the software necessary to control the
presentation. Further, the functioning of the gaming system is
improved by providing gaming effects that are presented without
interruption by using available presentation devices and omitting
unavailable presentation devices.
Reply Br. 5.
We agree with Appellants that the claims on appeal are directed to a
technological improvement rather than an abstract idea such as organizing
human activity or a fundamental economic practice. The claims employ
status information and identifiers for content presentation devices to
generate a transmission schedule to send to a plurality of content
4
Appeal 2016-006337
Application 13/382,783
presentation devices in order to synchronize a gaming effect across a
plurality of content presentation devices in a specific time interval.
Although the process claimed for synchronizing the gaming effect is perhaps
simple and logical, the Examiner does not provide evidence that the claimed
process is merely the automation of the same process previously performed
by a human. See McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d
1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“While the rules are embodied in computer
software that is processed by general-purpose computers, Defendants
provided no evidence that the process previously used by animators is the
same as the process required by the claims.”).
We note also that the claims do not involve managing the rules of a
game, “a commonplace business method aimed at processing business
information, applying a known business process to the particular
technological environment of the Internet, or creating or altering contractual
relations using generic computer functions and conventional network
operations,” as in other cases with claims held ineligible. DDR Holdings,
LLCv. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (2014) (collecting cases). We
also determine that the nature of the problem addressed by the claims,
namely the challenge for game developers to control content from various
sources, Spec. para. 41, is necessarily rooted in the technology of modem
wagering game machines that present sound and graphical elements. See id.
(“[TJhese claims stand apart because they do not merely recite the
performance of some business practice known from the pre-Intemet world
along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the
claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to
overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer
5
Appeal 2016-006337
Application 13/382,783
networks.”) To the extent such a problem would not have been difficult for
one of ordinary skill in the art to solve using known methods in this or other
fields, we determine that, in this case, such a circumstance is more
appropriately considered under Sections 102 or 103, rather than with the
eligibility filter of Section 101.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1—
11, 13-17, 21, and 23-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—11, 13—17, 21, and
23-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
REVERSED
6