Ex Parte Hoyt et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 30, 2019

14261971 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/261,971 04/25/2014
68155 7590 05/02/2019
FOUNTAINHEAD LAW GROUP, PC
Chad R. Walsh
900 LAFAYETTE STREET
SUITE 301
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joshua K. Hoyt
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.
000128-000600US 2117
EXAMINER
LIMA, FABIO S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2019 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):
docketing@fountainheadlaw.com
rbaumann@fountainheadlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSHUA K. HOYT and FORREST S. SEITZ
Appeal2018-007714
Application 14/261,971
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-007714
Application 14/261,971
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 7-9, 13-17, 19-36, and 39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to a combined video, chip, and card
monitoring system and method for casinos. Claim 30, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
30. A method of monitoring events m a casmo
environment, comprising the steps of:
receiving, by a processor from a radio-frequency
identification chip monitor, casino chip data of a table game,
wherein the casino chip data includes a plurality of locations and
a plurality of casino chip identifiers for a plurality of casino
chips;
receiving, by the processor from a game result monitor,
game result data of the table game;
receiving, by the processor from a video camera, video
data of the table game;
transitioning, by the processor, between a plurality of
states according to the game result data, wherein each of the
plurality of locations is associated with one of the plurality of
states;
accessing, by the processor, rules of the table game for
each of the plurality of locations, wherein the rules are associated
with the plurality of states, wherein accessing the rules includes:
1 Appellants indicate the real party in interest is Magnet Consulting, Inc.
(App. Br. 2).
2
Appeal2018-007714
Application 14/261,971
for a first location associated with a losing state
according to the game result data, using the rules for the
losing state to verify that the casino chip data corresponds
to a correct collection from the first location, and
for a second location associated with a winning state
according to the game result data, using the rules for the
winning state to verify that the casino chip data
corresponds to a correct payout to the second location;
outputting, by the processor, a result of verifying the
casino chip data at the first location and at the second location;
and
displaying together the video data, the casino chip data,
the game result data and the result of verifying the casino chip
data, wherein the casino chip data is displayed in a plurality of
areas that correspond to the plurality of locations of the table
game,
wherein displaying the video data comprises:
displaying the video data in a resize-able window having
a time slider area and an event markers area, wherein the time
slider area includes a time slider for moving the video data to
various timestamps, wherein the event markers area displays
progress bars that correspond to various alerts detected by the
radio frequency identification chip monitor, and wherein moving
the time slider to a given alert of the various alerts displays the
video at a given timestamp corresponding to the given alert,
further comprising:
storing the video data, the casino chip data, the game result
data, the result of verifying the casino chip data, and the various
alerts as a plurality of games;
receiving a user selection of a particular game from the
plurality of games; and
3
Appeal2018-007714
Application 14/261,971
displaying together the video data, the casino chip data,
the game result data and the result of verifying the casino chip
data, for the particular game according to the user selection.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
French
Ryan
Gururaj an et al.
Czyzewski et al.
Snow
Emori et al.
Moore et al.
Baldwin
us 5,735,742
US 2006/0258442 Al
US 2007 /0111773 Al
US 2008/0113783 Al
US 2010/0244382 Al
US 2012/0080845 Al
US 2012/0252564 Al
US 2015/0296187 Al
Apr. 7, 1998
Nov. 16, 2006
May 17, 2007
May 15, 2008
Sept. 30, 2010
Apr. 5, 2012
Oct. 4, 2012
Oct. 15, 2015
Hoyt et al. WO 2013/049664 Al Apr. 4, 2013
(hereinafter, Vaynberg, as the Examiner refers to the reference)
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections: 2
Claims 15-17, 22, 24--36, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Czyzewski, in view of Emori in further view of
Vaynberg, Baldwin, and Gururajan.
Claims 7-9, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Czyzewski, in view of Emori in further view of Vaynberg,
Baldwin, Gururajan and French.
2 The Examiner identifies the statutory basis as a pre-AIA statute in the
rejection, but the case was filed after the effective date of the AIA. We find
the Examiner's reference to pre-AIA is harmless here.
4
Appeal2018-007714
Application 14/261,971
Claims 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Czyzewski, in view of Emori in further view of Vaynberg,
Baldwin, Gururajan and Moore.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Czyzewski, in view of Emori in further view of Vaynberg, Baldwin,
Gururajan, Snow, and Ryan.
ANALYSIS
Claims 15-17, 22, and 24-36
With respect to independent claims 16, 17, and 30, Appellants present
arguments directed to independent claim 30 and do not set forth separate
arguments for patentability of independent claims 16 and 17. As a result, we
select independent claim 30 as the representative claim for the group and
address Appellants' arguments thereto. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2017). We do not consider arguments that Appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the Brief so we deem any such arguments as
waived. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants contend that claim 30 is "directed to a historical
monitoring embodiment" and "the other captured data is also displayed in
synchrony." (App. Br. 16) (emphasis omitted). Appellants describe an
example of the invention with respect to Figures 10-13 and 15, but we note
the claimed invention is not as detailed with respect to the graphical user
interface as in Appellants' example. (App. Br. 16-18). Appellants argue the
prior art----either alone or in combination-fails to teach "verifying the chip
data; alerts; timestamps; and displaying together the archived data ( video,
game result, chip) of the selected games." (App. Br. 18).
Appellants contend that the Examiner has relied upon
5
Appeal2018-007714
Application 14/261,971
Gururajan to address these features (previously recited in claim
37). However, it is respectfully submitted that the addition of
Gururaj an to the other references fails to suggest the specific
interaction of the features recited in claim 30 (as amended).
Specifically, claim 30 (as amended), is directed not only to
viewing the historical video data that has been tagged with the
various events and alerts, but also to viewing the visual
rendering of the historical chip data and card data, in
synchrony with the historical video data.
(App. Br. 18).
Although we agree that the Gururajan reference discloses adding the
chip data "onto the digital video," the Gururajan reference does not
specifically disclose how the data is displayed to the user. 3 We find that
dependent claim 39 recites "in synchrony" with the historical video data, but
representative independent claim 30 does not include this limitation. The
language of independent claim 30 does not specifically recite the timing or
limit the placement of the data in a graphical user interface in any specific
manner. Instead the language of claim 30 merely recites that the data is
presented "wherein the casino chip data is displayed in a plurality of areas
that correspond to the plurality of locations of the table game."
We further note that a graphical user interface of the Baldwin
reference clearly discloses and suggests different display areas for both
video and textual information. (See Final Act. 7; Baldwin Fig. 5, 7).
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that the Vaynberg reference
"discloses displaying together (Figs. 3, 6, 11, 13, and 15 depicts a display
screen displaying together different information at designated locations
"In order to assist surveillance operators, data may be rendered onto the
digital video. For instance, a color coded small box may be rendered beside
each betting spot on the video. The color of the box may be utilized to
indicate the current game status for the player." (Gururajan ,r 256).
6
Appeal2018-007714
Application 14/261,971
collect[ ed] from a casino table)," and we find the Vaynberg reference
discloses and suggests screen shots ( video data) in combination with
additional text data with tabs to synchronize different portions of the game
play and processing. (See Final Act. 7; Vaynberg ,r,r 13, 38).
The Examiner maintains that "the features upon which appellant relies
(i.e., the chip data and card data is separate from the video data) are not
recited in the rejected claim(s)." (Ans. 4).
Appellants' argument fails because it is not commensurate with the
scope of the claim. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982)
("[A]ppellant's arguments fail from the outset because ... they are not based
on limitations appearing in the claims."); In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("[The] proffered facts ... are not commensurate
with the claim scope and are therefore unpersuasive.").
We agree with the Examiner that Appellants' argument is not
commensurate in scope with claim 30, and therefore, is not persuasive of
error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness of representative
independent claim 30.
Appellants do not provide additional arguments in the Reply Brief
with regards to representative independent claim 30. (Reply Br. 2).
Therefore, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of representative independent claim 30 and independent claims 16
and 17 not argued separately.
Claims 7-9, 13, and 14
With respect to dependent claims 7-9, 13, and 14, Appellants
argue dependent claim 7 and rely upon those arguments for dependent
7
Appeal2018-007714
Application 14/261,971
claims 8, 9, 13, and 14. (App. Br. 20). We select dependent claim 7 as the
representative claim for the group and will address Appellants' arguments
thereto.
Appellants set forth arguments that generally address the language of
dependent claim 7 with regards to Figure 10 of the disclosure. Appellants
contend that the French reference ( column 6 and figure 2) displays the chip
information/ data when displaying the video data, but the claim requires
"chip values are displayed when displaying the chip data." (App. Br. 19-
20). Appellants further argue that independent claim 30 has been amended
to limit the claimed invention to the historical monitoring embodiments
rather than the real-time monitoring embodiments. (Reply Br. 2-3).
Appellants contend that the French reference covers recording all gaming
chip transactions in a casino and that the chip values would be displayed
only to the extent that the chip values were captured in the recorded video.
(Reply Br. 3). Appellants further contend "[f]or example, FIG. 10 shows the
chip values displayed in the bets grid area 1024, which is distinct from the
video area 1022."
We note that claim 7 recites "displaying the plurality of casino chip
values when displaying the casino chip data." We find the claim language is
broad enough to be a temporal limitation and does not specifically recite a
specific location on the display or on a graphical user interface.
We also note that column 6 of the French reference discloses
automatically displaying the value of the gaming chips placed by the player
in the bet placement area. As a result, we agree with the Examiner that the
system determines the chip values for this display and that chip value
data would similarly be available for the historical analysis in the base
combination of prior art references. Therefore, Appellants' argument does
8
Appeal2018-007714
Application 14/261,971
not show error in the Examiner's factual findings or conclusion of
obviousness of representative dependent claim 7.
Claims 19-21, 23, and 39
With respect to the additional dependent claims, Appellants rely upon
the arguments set forth with respect to parent claim 30. (App. Br. 21; Reply
Br. 4). Because we did not find error in the base combination, Appellants'
argument does not show error in the Examiner's factual findings or
conclusion of obviousness of these claims, and we find these claims fall with
representative independent claim 30.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 7-9, 13-17, 19-36,
and 39 based upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 7-9, 13-17, 19-36, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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
9