Ex Parte Lind et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 2, 2009

11015255 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 2, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte JEFFERSON C. LIND and BRIAN ALEXANDER WATKINS
__________

Appeal 2008-2143
Application 11/015,255
Technology Center 3700
__________

Decided: January 2, 2009
__________

Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, LORA M. GREEN, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants have requested rehearing (reconsideration) of the decision
entered September 2, 2008. That decision affirmed the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 22, 23, and 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants' request has been granted to the extent that the decision has
been reconsidered, but such request is denied with respect to making any
modifications to the decision affirming the Examiner's rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2008-2143
Application 11/015,255

DISCUSSION
Appellants contend that the previous decision misapprehended the
meaning of a game “result” (Req. Recons. 1). Appellants specifically
contend that “if game ‘result’ means the result of matching each bingo card
in play in the given bingo game, then Wei fails to disclose that the set of
playing card face representations correlated to the game result is selected
from a number of alternative sets of playing card face representations also
correlated to the game result” (Req. Recons. 2-3). Appellants also contend
that “there is no assignment of a set of playing card face representations for
a ‘result’ in the bingo game disclosed in Wei” (Req. Recons. 4). Finally,
Appellants contend that “defining the set of playing card face
representations as representations from a single bingo card for purposes
of element (a) of claim 22 is fatally inconsistent with the statement that the
different portions from the set of playing card face representations are
from different bingo cards” (Req. Recons. 6).
We have reviewed our Decision in light of the arguments presented by
Appellants in the Request. However, we are not persuaded that our Decision
was in error. Appellants’ arguments narrowly read the limitations, rather
than apply the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification.
Appellants do not define “result” in their Specification or in their
claims. The only requirement for a “result” in claims 22 and 26 is to
correlate the “result” to a subset of playing card face representations of a
standard deck where more than one “result” may be correlated (see claim
22). No specific “result” is required and no specific “representations” are
2
Appeal 2008-2143
Application 11/015,255

required. In our opinion, Wei reasonably teaches a bingo game which uses
bingo cards with playing card face representations which satisfy the “game
result” requirements of claims 22 and 26 based on the findings of fact and
reasons provided in the Decision.
Regarding Appellants argument on assignment of a set of playing card
face representations for a “result”, we also found that Wei expressly taught
that from all the winning Bingo configurations, the computer program
identified the highest winning poker hand (see Decision 6, Finding of Fact
5). In making this selection, Wei not only further evidences the use of a
number of alternative sets of playing card face representations correlated to
the game result, but Wei also has assigned a “result” to playing card face
representations.
We also do not find persuasive Appellants’ contention that our
interpretation of the claims is “fatally inconsistent” (Req. Reconsid. 6). In
fact, while the claim includes no requirements for multiple different cards,
Wei clearly teaches the use of multiple game cards (see Decision 5, Finding
of Fact 2).
Further, while Appellants argue that “if one defines the set of playing
card face representations as representations from a single bingo card then
Wei does not disclose element (b) of claim 22” (Req. Recons. 6), this
argument is simply incorrect. Element (b) of claim 22 does not require
different playing cards, but simply requires first and second portion of the
set of playing card face representations (see Claim 22). For example, Wei
notes that “if the Bingo game required a two (2) straight line Bingo
configuration to win the Bingo, the player is able to choose the best five (5)
3
Appeal 2008-2143
Application 11/015,255

card Poker hand from the playing card indicia 28 available” (Wei, col. 5, ll.
27-30). In this example, the two different Bingo’s of Wei are reasonably
understood as the first and second portion of the set of playing card face
representations, and Wei permits selection of playing card face
representations from both the first and second portions (see Wei, col. 5, ll.
27-30).
SUMMARY
We have carefully reviewed the original opinion in light of
Appellants' request, but we find no point of law or fact which we overlooked
or misapprehended in arriving at our decision. To the extent relevant,
Appellants’ request amounts to a reargument of points already considered by
the board.
Therefore, Appellants’ request has been granted to the extent that the
decision has been reconsidered, but such request is denied with respect to
making any modifications to the decision affirming the Examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DENIED

LP

THE CULBERTSON GROUP, P.C.
1114 LOST CREEK BLVD.
SUITE 420
AUSTIN TX 78746
4