Ex Parte Guinn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2018

13772566 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/772,566 02/21/2013 Andrew C. Guinn
55136 7590 07/27/2018
BALLY GAMING INC.
6601 S. BERMUDA ROAD
LAS VEGAS, NV 89119
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
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.
247079-000843USPT 9236
EXAMINER
ROWLAND, STEVE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2018 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):
marv.hein@scientificgames.com
debra.debello@scientificgames.com
david.bremer@scientificgames.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW C. GUINN, JEREMIE D. MOLL,
THOMAS R. WOOD, DAMONE. GURA, and BRIAN C. MARRANT
Appeal2017-006471
Application 13/772,566
Technology Center 3700
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, LISA M. GUIJT, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection2 of claims 1, 2, 10-18, and 20-25. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as BALLY GAMING, INC.
Appeal Br. 3.
2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated May, 5, 2016 (herein
"Final Act.").
3 The Examiner's objection to claims 3-9 and 19 is a petitionable, not an
appealable, matter. Final Act. 9.
Appeal2017-006471
Application 13/772,566
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1, 17, 18, 24, and 25 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A gaming system primarily dedicated to playing at least
one casino wagering game, the gaming system comprising:
a gaming cabinet for housing components associated with
the casino wagering game,
one or more electronic display devices coupled to the
gaming cabinet;
an electronic input device coupled to the gaming cabinet,
the electronic input device configured to receive a physical input
from a player to initiate the casino wagering game and transform
the input into an electronic signal;
a random element generator configured to generate one or
more random elements; and
one or more controllers configured to:
initiate the casino wagering game in response to the
electronic signal from the electronic input device;
display the casino wagering game and a real-time
event;
determine an outcome of the casino wagering game
based, at least in part, on the one or more random
elements;
identify at least one selected incident occurring in
the real-time event, occurrence of the at least one selected
incident in the real-time event not being controlled by the
player or the gaming system;
associate the at least one selected incident with at
least one parameter of the casino wagering game; and
2
Appeal2017-006471
Application 13/772,566
in response to an occurrence of the at least one
selected incident in the real-time event during the
simultaneous display of the casino wagering game and the
real-time event, modify the at least one parameter for at
least one play of the casino wagering game.
THE REJECTI0NS 4,5
I. Claims 1, 10-12, 14--18, 21, 23, and 25 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Asher (US 2007/0184892 Al;
published Aug. 9, 2007) and Cannon (US 2005/0233794 Al; Oct. 20, 2005).
Final Act. 3-8.
II. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Asher, Cannon, and Knowles (US 2007 /0087804 Al;
published Apr. 19, 2007). Final Act. 9.
4 The Examiner withdraws the rejections of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph (see Final Act. 2), and of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) (see Final Act. 8-9). Ans. 2.
5 Claims 18-25 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 pursuant to the Non-
Final Office Action dated September 17, 2015 (pages 2-3). The§ 101
rejection is not re-stated in the Final Action, although it appears the
Examiner perhaps intended to maintain the rejection because the Final
Action states that claims 20, 22, and 24 would be allowable "if rewritten to
overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 101." Final Act. 9-10. In the
Appeal Brief, Appellants indicate their understanding that the § 101
rejection is not maintained. Appeal Br. 10. Given the Examiner's silence
regarding the rejection in the Examiner's Answer, we consider the rejection
of claims 18-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 not to be maintained. For clarity of
the record, we note our understanding that the Examiner's rejections of
claims 17 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § IOI made pursuant to the Non-Final
Office Action dated August 15, 2014 (pages 2-3) and claims 1-25 under 35
U.S.C. § IOI made pursuant to the Non-Final Office Action dated August
15, 2014 (pages 2-3) are also not maintained.
3
Appeal2017-006471
Application 13/772,566
ANALYSIS
Reiection I
Appellants present arguments for the patentability of claims l, 10----12,
14----18, 21, and 23 as a group, and separately for the patentability of
independent claim 25. Appeal Br. 10----14. \Ve select independent claim 1 as
the representative claim, whereas claims 10-12, 14-18, 21, and 23 stand or
fall therewith, and we address c 1aim 25 separately to the extent so argued by
Appellants. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that
Asher generally discloses the claimed gaming system. Final Act. 3-4 (for
example, quoting Asher ,r 13 ("a video feed of the sporting event is
communicated to the bettor in real time[,] ... [t]hus, the bettor may witness
the sporting event that will be used to determine the result of his bet.")). The
Examiner determines that "Cannon suggests-where Asher does not
specifically disclose-simultaneously displaying the casino wagering game
and real-time event." Id. at 4 ( citing Cannon ,r 69, Fig. 4D). The Examiner
reasons that it would have been obvious "to combine the disclosures of
Asher and Cannon in order to allow the player to view the sporting event
without leaving the game, thus encouraging continued concentration on the
game and potentially longer play." Id. at 4-5.
Appellants submit that claim 1 requires that "the casino wagering
game and the real-time event must be displayed simultaneously AND the
selected incident must occur during the simultaneous display." Appeal Br.
12. Appellants argue that "Asher teaches that the wagering game cannot
begin until after the selected sporting event results are available" and
therefore, "it is simply impossible for the sporting event results to occur
4
Appeal2017-006471
Application 13/772,566
during simultaneous display of the wagering game and the sporting event
itself." Id.; Reply Br. 4--5.
As set forth supra, claim 1 requires, in relevant part, '"one or more
controllers configured to: initiate the casino wagering game in response to
the electronic signal from the electronic input device." An ordinary meaning
of the claim term "initiate" consistent with the Specification is "to begin or
set going." WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INT'L DICTIONARY 1164 (1993).
Appellants apparently construe the meaning of "initiate the casino wagering
game" as "to set going the game play" (i.e., pressing the SPIN button of a
slot machine), as opposed to, for example, selecting and displaying a casino
wagering game (or parameters of the casino wagering) and further, placing a
wager or bet. The Specification discloses, with reference to Figure 5, that
[a] player playing the wagering games 130A, 130B has placed
appropriate wager and commenced a play of the wagering games
130A, 130B. The player initiated the play ofthe wagering games
130A, 130B 1;1/fth an appropriate input device, such a{sJ spin
button 188, and the reels 121A-125A, 121B-121B of the various
garnes 130A, 130B are shown spinning and in motion, prior to
stopping to reveal the random outcomes independently selected
for each game 130A, 130B.
Spec. i158 (emphasis added).
The Patent and Trademark Office determines the scope of claims in
patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon
giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art."
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.Cir.2004). We
determine that the claim language "initiate the casino wagering game" is not
limited to "initiating the play of the wagering game," for example, by
5
Appeal2017-006471
Application 13/772,566
pressing a SPIN button, as argued by Appellants, but rather, may include
setting a casino game going by placing a bet, as disclosed in Asher.
Asher discloses that "[s]ystem 10 may offer bets 26 regarding any
number of games that have one or more game inputs 34 that are typically
determined based at least in part on luck or by chance," for example, "casino
games," such as "craps, blackjack, roulette, slots," etc. Asher, 30. Asher
also discloses that "where sporting events include races (such as horse[]
races, dog races or auto races, for example), one or more selected finishing
positions 31 are associated with certain bets 26." id. ,r 32. Asher further
discloses that "[b]etting system platform 12 may receive sporting event
information 66 from race hosts 16 at various times," such as in "real-time''
(id. ,r 39), and "one or rnore set of nlles 36 for each game offered by betting
systern platform 12 ... define how to determine game inputs 34 from event
results 32 and/or parameters 28 of bets 26 [(i.e., the game associated with
the bet)] such as selected finishing positions 31, for example" (id. iril 38, 43).
Asher further discloses that '"[b Jet results 40 include results of each bet 26,
which may be determined by betting system platform 12 based at least on
the set of rules 36 for the particular game and one or more game inputs 34
determined for that bet 26." Id. , 48.
Asher discloses that "[e]ach client 14 may include a browser
application 74 operable to provide an interface to web pages 72 ... [ which]
allow a user 20 to select various parameters for a bet 26, such as the type of
game, the type of the bet 26, ... and/or one or more selected finishing
positions 31, for example, and to submit the bet 26 having such selected
pararneters." Asher, 53. Asher also discloses that "betting system platform
12 may comrnunicate [(i.e., live)] to a user 20 one or more web pages 72
6
Appeal2017-006471
Application 13/772,566
indicating progress data 80 regarding a sporting event to which a bet 26
placed by that user 20 has been assigned such that the user 20 may track the
progress of the sporting event" id. ,r 59. Asher fmiher discloses that
"[a]fter the sporting event is completed, event results 32 of the sporting
event may be received by betting system platform 12" (id. ,r 61) and that
"[b Jetting system platform 12 may then deterrnine for each bet 26 one or
more game inputs 34 for the game" (id.). Asher discloses that
[ a ]fter determining the game input( s) 34 for each bet 26, betting
system platform 12 may then detennine a bet result[ s J 40 of the
game for each bet 26 assigned to the particular race based at least
on (l) relevant rules 36 regarding the game; (2) the determined
game input( s) 34; and, in some instances, (3) one or more
parameters 28 of that bet 26.
Id. ,r 63. Asher discloses that "[a]fter determining the bet result 40 for each
bet 26, betting system platform 12 may then determine how to distribute the
pari-mutuel wager pool 30." Id. ,r 64, see. e.g., Fig. 7.
Based on the above-recited passages, we determine that Asher
discloses a controller (i.e., system 10) configured to initiate, or set going, a
casino wagering game, which will involve, for example, slots with a set of
rules from a real-time sporting event, in response to the electronic signal
from the electronic input device, which is a player placing bet 26 via a web
browser. In fact, Asher is silent as to whether the player does anyihing
further before receiving a payout according to the game rules. Put another
way, we do not agree that claim 1 requires initiation of the casino wagering
game to be limited to initiating the casino wagering game play by starting
the spin of the slot machine reels; rather, in .Asher, placing a bet sets going
the casino wagering game, whereupon the bettor simply awaits the results.
7
Appeal2017-006471
Application 13/772,566
Claim l, as set forth supra, further requires the controller(s) to direct
at least one of the one or more electronic display devices to simultaneously
display the casino wagering game and a real-time event. Asher discloses
that "web pages 72 providing various betting information and offering one
or more types of bets 26 for various games are communicated from betting
systern platform 12 to clients 14 and displayed by browser applications 74."
Asher il 73. Asher also discloses that "betting system platform 12 may
communicate to a user 20 one or more web pages 72 indicating progress data
80 regarding a sporting event to which a bet 26 [is] placed by that user 20
has been assigned such that the user 20 may track the progress of the
sporting event'' including displaying "a live ... video feed of the sporting
event" Id. i159. The Examiner relies on Cannon, as set forth supra, for
disclosing electronic display devices that simultaneously displaying a casino
wagering game and a real-time event. Notably, all that is required by claim
1 is that the casino wagering game be displayed; the game does not have to
be in play, as seemingly argued by Appellants. In other words, the slot
machine wheels must appear on the display screen, but the wheels are not
required to be spinning.
Claim 1, as set forth supra, further requires the controller(s) to be
configured to detennine an outcome of the casino wagering game based, at
least in part, on the one or more random elements. .As set fmih supra, Asher
discloses that "[s]ystem 10 may offer bets 26 regarding any number of
games that have one or more game inputs 34 that are typically determined
based at least in part on luck or by chance." Asher ,r 30.
Claim 1, as set fmih supra, further requires the controller( s) to be
configured to identify at least one selected incident occurring in the real-time
8
Appeal2017-006471
Application 13/772,566
event, occun-ence of at least one selected incident in the real-time event not
being controlled by the player or the gaming system. As set forth supra,
Asher discloses that "[b Jetting system platform 12 may receive sporting
event information 66 from race hosts 16 at various times," such as in "real-
time" (Asher, 39), and also that selected incidents in the real-time events
may include selected incidents such as "the finishing position of each
participant (such as the finishing position of each horse, dog or automobile,
for example) in the race event," which are not controlled by the player or the
gaming system. Id. if 40.
Claim 1, as set forth supra, further requires the controller(s) to be
configured to associate the at least one selected incident with at least one
parameter of the casino wagering game. Asher depicts, in Figure 4 for
example, the example rules, or associations, between a selected incident
(i.e., the finishing position of a horse) with a casino wagering game
parameter (i.e., total value of cards in a user's hand).
Claim I, as set forth supra, fmiher requires in response to an
occun-ence of the at least one selected incident in the real-time event during
'--'
the simultaneous display of the casino wagering game and the real-time
event, modify the at least one parameter of at least one play of the casino
wagering game. T'hus, while the casino wagering game is displayed
(wherein, as discussed supra, the state of the game displayed is not
specified), simultaneously with the display of the real-time event (e.g., by a
live-feed), a parameter must be modified in response to the selected incident.
As set forth supra, the Examiner relies on Cannon for such a simultaneous
display. Notwithstanding, Asher discloses that in response to an occurrence
(i.e., finishing position 31) in the real-time event during the simultaneous
9
Appeal2017-006471
Application 13/772,566
display, at least one parameter (i.e., value of the randomly selected outcome
of the dice) is modified (i.e., to be a different value based on the rules, which
incorporate the selected incident. See, e.g., Asher ,r 43 ("the rules 36 for
each game define how to determine game inputs 34 from event results 32
and/or parameters 28 of bets 26, such as selected finishing positions 31"),
Fig. 4.
Because claim l reads on Asher's beginning (or initiating) the casino
wager game (by placing a bet) before (in the real-time scenario) the sporting
event with the selected occurrence begins, Appellants' argument does not
apprise us of error in the Examiner's findings with respect to Asher.
Additionally, except for determining an outcome 0:/ier initiating a
casino wagering game, and modifying a parameter afier (and in response to)
an occurrence of the selected incident in the real-time event, which are both
disclosed in Asher as set forth supra, claim l does not specify any order in
which the controller must cany out the remaining claimed "configurations."
For example, the controller may simultaneously display the casino wagering
game (in any state) and a real-time event, and next, the controller may
initiate the casino wagering game in response to an electronic signal from
the electronic input device, for example, by placing a bet or pressing a spin
button. As another example, the controller may associate a selected incident
with at least one parameter of the casino wager game, as in Asher by
establishing a set of rules, and next, detennine an outcome of the casino
wagering game based on random elements. See Interactive Gift Express,
Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("Unless the
steps of a method actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily
construed to require one."). In other words, neither the grammar of claim 1
10
Appeal2017-006471
Application 13/772,566
nor the Specification requires Appellants' narrow construction. See Altiris,
Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding that
in determining whether steps of a method must be performed in order, we
must first look to the claim language to detennine whether, "as a matter of
logic or grammar," the method steps must be performed in the order written,
and if they do not, "we look to the rest of the specification to determine
whether it 'directly or implicitly requires such a narrow construction"')
Appellants also argue that "neither of the cited references teaches or
suggests simultaneous display of a wagering game and a real-time event
functionally linked to the wagering game." Appeal Br. 13. However,
Cannon, as relied on by the Examiner supra, discloses "a plurality of games
of chance on a single display screen" (Cannon, Abstract, Fig. 4A) and also
that "[s]pecial event window 98 may also display 'real-time' video streams"
("id. ,r 69). See also id. ,r 21 ("A Sports Book event may also be wagered on
and viewed mutually concurrently with play of at least one of the
independently operable games of chance."); id. ,r 56 (suggesting "a picture
in picture screen" for the Sports Book event). In view of Asher's disclosure
of "live streaming video feed of the particular horse race" (Asher ,r 76) and
teaching that linking the functionality of the real-time event to the wagering
game (i.e,. by the set of rules), Appellants' argument does not apprise us that
the Examiner's proposed combination of adding a second display to Asher to
show the bettor the game (i.e., slots) alongside a live stream of the sports
event that will govern modification of slot combinations, fails to result in the
invention recited in claim 1. Appellants' argument also does not apprise us
of error in the Examiner's reasoning that to do so would encourage
11
Appeal2017-006471
Application 13/772,566
continued concentration on, and potentially longer play, of the casino
wagering game, as set forth supra.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, and claims 10-12, 14-18, 21, and23 fall therewith.
Independent claini 25
Appellants submit that claim 25 requires "'receiving ... a wager input
to wager that a selected incident will occur in the real-time event .... ,"' and
that the Examiner's reliance on Asher for disclosing that '"[T]he outcome of
each bet is determined based at least in part on the results of the sporting
event to which that bet is assigned, such as finishing position of horses
participating in a horse race,"' is in error. Appeal Br. 14-15 ( omissions and
alteration in original). In support, Appellants argue that "[i]n Asher's garne,
there would be no point to wager that a finishing position will occur because
there is no likelihood that a finishing position 1vill not occur." Id. at 15.
\Ve determine that because the player may assign bet 26 to an
occurrence in a particular sporting event, a preponderance of evidence
supports the Examiner's rejection of claim 25.
Rei ection II
Appellants do not present arguments for the patentability of claim 13
apart from the arguments presented supra. Appeal Br. 10-16. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13, which depends from
independent claim 1, as set forth supra.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 10-18, and 20-25 is
AFFIRMED.
12
Appeal2017-006471
Application 13/772,566
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
13