Ex Parte Lind et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2014

10726979 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________

Ex Parte CLIFTON LIND and JEFFERSON CRAIG LIND

_______________

Appeal 2012-003723
Application 10/726,979
Technology Center 3700

_______________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-003723
Application 10/726,979

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1-20 as anticipated by US 6,802,776 (the “’776 patent”). Appellants
appealed, but the Examiner withdrew, a double patenting rejection. Ans. 11-12.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
Claim 1, reproduced below with added emphasis, is representative of the
claimed subject matter.
1. A method including the steps of:
(a) with a data processing system, matching a first set of
game designations with a set of bingo card
representations to produce a matched card set and
storing the matched card set in data storage for the
data processing system, the matched card set
including data representing a number of game play
records with each game play record corresponding to
a different one of the bingo card representations and
including a result indicator indicating a result of the
match between the first set of game designations and
the respective bingo card representation;
(b) receiving a number of game play requests at the data
processing system, each respective game play request
being received from a respective remote device and
being associated with a respective player and
including identifying information to identify a
respective bingo card representation from the set of
bingo card representations;
(c) for each game play request, assigning the respective
player the game play record corresponding to the
respective bingo card representation identified by the
identifying information included with that game play
request, the assigning being performed by the data
processing system; and
(d) wherein the identifying information produces an
association between the respective bingo card
representation and the respective player prior to the
Appeal 2012-003723
Application 10/726,979

3

assignment of the respective game play record to the
respective player.

OPINION
Contentions
Appellants allege that the Examiner erred in finding the ’776 patent
anticipates the subject matter of claim 1, and more specifically, steps (b) and (c).
App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 2-4. Appellants separately argue claims 8 and 14, but
rely on the same arguments set forth for claim 1. App. Br. 12-13. Accordingly, we
focus our analysis on steps (b) and (c) of claim 1, with claims 2-7 standing or
falling with claim 1 and the issue with respect to claim 1 being dispositive of the
issues with respect to claims 8 and 14, further with claims 9-13 and 15-20 standing
or falling with claim 8.
Independent claim 1 includes a step (b) of receiving a game play request,
which includes “identifying information to identify a respective bingo card
representation.” The claim further includes a step (c) of “assigning . . . the game
play record corresponding to the . . . bingo card representation identified by the
identifying information . . . [in the request].”
With respect to step (b), the Examiner found that the ’776 patent discloses a
player’s game play request as including the purchase of “pre-matched bingo card
representations.” Ans. 5, 12-13 (citing ’776 patent, 8:3-6, 9:42-60). With respect
to step (c), the Examiner cites to portions of the ’776 patent regarding assigning a
bingo card representation after the player request. Ans. 5-6, 13-14 (citing ’776
patent, 3:1-6, 9:42-60, 10:53-59, claims 1 & 10).

Appeal 2012-003723
Application 10/726,979

4

Appellants’ Arguments Regarding Step (b)
Appellants argue that the ’776 patent does not disclose that the “requests
include bingo card representation identifying information.” App. Br. 12.
However, Appellants merely allege that “the 776 patent fails to disclose [the claim
limitation]” and that “the cited disclosure from the 776 patent simply does not
represent or even suggest the [claimed] limitations.” Id. These bald allegations are
insufficient to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Further, Appellants
argue that there is “no factual basis for equating game play records and game play
requests [as set forth in the Examiner’s Answer].” Reply Br. 3. To the contrary,
however, the Examiner here is explaining how he or she is reading the claimed
elements on the disclosure of the ’776 patent. See Ans. 12-13. While it appears
Appellants are interpreting the claims differently from the Examiner’s
interpretation, notably with respect to “information to identify” in step (b) of claim
1, Appellants do not offer their own claim construction, or point to error in the
Examiner’s interpretation.
To that end, we note that the claim does not require information that
identifies a bingo card representation, but rather, more broadly, information “to
identify” a bingo card representation. The Specification likewise indicates that the
“identifying information” is to be read broadly:
The information included in this communication of the
player’s game play request at least includes sufficient
information for the central computer to identify a bingo
card representation being placed in play. This
information may include at one extreme the entire set of
data required to define the bingo card representation and
at the other extreme a card identifier, serial number, or
sequence number, or even a player station identifier.
Also, where the player has been assigned only a single
bingo card, an identifier for the player or possibly the
Appeal 2012-003723
Application 10/726,979

5

player’s player station has the effect of defining the bingo
card representation being placed in play.
Spec. 28:4-11; see also App. Br. 2 (citing to this portion of the Specification).
Thus, the “identifying information to identify” merely needs to provide sufficient
information to allow a bingo card representation to be identified, rather than to
directly identify a particular bingo card representation.
In view of this, the Examiner cites to a “pre-matched bingo card
representation[]” in the request of the ’776 patent. Id. In particular, one portion
cited by the Examiner states that a computer allows a person to “participate in the
games available through the terminal by purchasing pre-matched bingo card
representations . . . .” ’776 patent, 8:4-6. This portion of the ’776 patent refers to
figure 9 for additional information. Id. at 8:9-11. In the description of figure 9, the
’776 patent explains that “the data included in a game play request may include a
game type identifier which identifies a particular type of matched card set at the
central computer 34.” Id. at 13:52-55. A “matched card set” or “pre-matched card
set” in the ’776 patent, in turn, is the combination of “(bingo card representations)
[matched] to sets of game designations.” Id. at 2:52-54, 5:8-9. Thus, the game
play request in the ’776 patent asks for a particular type of bingo card
representation matched to sets of game designations.
As such, the Examiner’s finding shows that the ’776 patent describes a
request that includes information to identify a bingo card representation, in the
form of a request for a type of bingo card representation. Appellants, who do not
address with particularity this portion of the Examiner’s finding, have not apprised
us of error in this finding.

Appeal 2012-003723
Application 10/726,979

6

Appellants’ Arguments Regarding Steps (c) and (d)
The crux of Appellants’ argument is found at page 12 of their Appeal Brief:
The fact remains that the 776 patent fails to disclose that
the player initiated game play requests include bingo card
representation identifying information as required at
element (b) of claim 1, and also fails to disclose the
assignment of the identified bingo card representation as
required at element (c) of claim 1. In fact, the 776 patent
specifically discloses that the game play records (and
thus pre-matched bingo card representations) are
assigned randomly in response to incoming game play
requests (776 patent at col. 16, line 64 to col. 17, line 4).
App. Br. 12. Appellants place emphasis on the ’776 patent’s purported disclosure
of randomly assigning game play records in response to incoming game play
requests. Id. Appellants do not explain, however, what importance random
assignment plays, in the context of this appeal. Appellants do not offer any claim
constructions or explanations for why the claims do not read on the particular
aspects of the ’776 patent relied on by the Examiner.
Claim 1 does not discuss how game play records are assigned to players.
Claim 1 merely states in step (c), “for each game play request, assigning the
respective player the game play record corresponding to the . . . identifying
information included with that game play request.” We are not persuaded that this
step precludes random assignment of a game play record in response to a game
play request. Claim 1 further states in step (d) that the “identifying information
produces an association between the . . . bingo card representation and the . . .
player prior to the assignment of the . . . game play record.” We are not persuaded
that this step precludes random assignment of a game play record in response to
the game play request. All that is required is that there is an association between
the bingo card representation and the player prior to the assignment of the game
Appeal 2012-003723
Application 10/726,979

7

record. This is met, in the Examiner’s rejection, by the request for the type of
bingo card representation occurring before the bingo card representation itself is
assigned. See Ans. 5-6, 13-14. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments regarding
steps (c) and (d) are not persuasive.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to rejection claims 1-20.

AFFIRMED

alw