Ex Parte Lind et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 16, 2009

10845954 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 16, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte CLIFTON LIND, BRENDAN O’CONNOR, ROBERT LANNERT
and JEFFERSON C. LIND
__________

Appeal 2009-005237
Application 10/845,954
Technology Center 3700
__________

Decided: October 16, 2009
__________

Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, ERIC GRIMES, and STEPHEN WALSH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a system
for playing bingo-type games, which the Examiner has rejected as obvious.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
Appeal 2009-005237
Application 10/845,954

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification discloses a “method for conducting a bingo-type
game . . . [that] includes receiving a daub selection input from a player and
responding to the daub selection input by setting a daub mode” (Spec. 4: 2-
4). “Daubing” refers to marking designations on a card as they are selected
during the game (id. at 2: 15-16).
The Specification discloses that a “first-type daub mode requires an
independent player input to daub the player card representation. For
example, when the first-type daub mode comprises a manual daub mode, the
player is required to manually daub each matched card location.” (Id. at 4:
13-15.) By contrast, a “second-type daub mode requires no independent
player input to daub the player card representation. In this second-type daub
mode each matched card location on the player card is daubed without
further player input.” (Id. at 4: 18-20.)
The Specification discloses that “[p]referred forms of the invention
may give the player the opportunity to make their daub mode selection input
as part of the login process . . . or at least prior to entering any game play
request” (id. at 27: 9-11). “[W]here a player’s desired daub mode may be
associated with the player’s account, no separate daub mode selection input
at player station 40 may be required to select a daub mode” (id. at 27: 11-
13).
Claims 27-31 are pending and on appeal. Claim 27 is the only
independent claim and reads as follows:
27. A gaming system for conducting bingo-type games, the gaming
system including:
(a) a player station having a login device for enabling a player login
input to log a player in to the player station;
Appeal 2009-005237
Application 10/845,954

3
(b) a device located remotely from the player station for storing a first
daub mode for the player;
(c) a user interface device included with the player station for
enabling the player to selectively enter a first daub mode selection input and
a second daub mode selection input;
(d) a daub selection controller for (i) setting a daub mode for the
player station as the first daub mode in response to the first daub mode
selection input, for (ii) setting the daub mode for the player station as a
second daub mode in response to the second daub mode selection input, and
for (iii) setting the daub mode for the player station as the first daub mode in
response to the player login input; and
(e) a player station control included with the player station for
enabling the player to make a game play request to enter a bingo card
representation in a bingo game, the game play request comprising an input
separate from the first daub mode selection input and the second daub mode
selection input.
OBVIOUSNESS
Issue
The Examiner has rejected claims 27-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious in view of Itkis1 and Fisk2 (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds that “Itkis
teaches a gaming system and player station for conducting bingo-type
games” (id.) that meets all the limitations of claim 27 except that Itkis does
not teach “making a game play request to enter a bingo game that is separate
from the manual daub mode [input] and the card daub mode [input]. Itkis
also . . . lacks specifically teaching remote locations of the gaming system.”
(Id. at 5.)
The Examiner finds that Fisk teaches the elements of claim 27 that are
missing from Itkis (id. at 5-6) and concludes that the claimed system would
have been obvious because “all the claimed elements were known in the

1 Itkis, U.S. Patent 4,856,787, Aug. 15, 1989.
2 Fisk, U.S. Patent 6,280,325 B1, Aug. 28, 2001.
Appeal 2009-005237
Application 10/845,954

4
prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as
claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions” (id.
at 6).
Appellants contend that
at least two claim limitations . . . are not present in the cited art.
First, there is no teaching or suggestion in Fisk of setting a daub
mode in response to a player login input as required at element
(d) of claim 27. The Fisk patent teaches only one daub mode,
an automatic daub. . . . Second, Fisk also fails to disclose or
suggest any separate device for storing any daub mode for a
respective player as required at element (b) of claim 27.
(Appeal Br. 7.)
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Have Appellants shown
that the Examiner erred in concluding that Fisk teaches or suggests the
limitations of claim 27 that are missing from Itkis?
Findings of Fact
1. Itkis discloses “a distributed game network comprising a master
game device and a number of slave game devices” (Itkis, col. 1, ll. 41-43).
2. Itkis discloses that “the master game device 1 is used by a game
operator, slave game device 7 is utilized by a player” (id. at col. 2, ll. 63-65).
3. Itkis discloses that the “slave game devices execute in real time
(play) concurrently a number of menu-selectable card and chance games,
such as bingo, keno, poker, blackjack, and the like” (id. at col. 1, ll. 50-53).
4. Itkis discloses that “[a]s shown in FIG. 5, the slave game device
provides two modes of playing the bingo game, namely the automatic mode
39 and the manual mode 40” (id. at col. 4, ll. 47-49).
Appeal 2009-005237
Application 10/845,954

5
5. Itkis’ Figure 5 “shows a slave game device menu of game
selections” (id. at col. 2, ll. 39-40) that include “6. AUTOMATIC BINGO”
and “7. MANUAL BINGO” (id. at Fig. 5).
6. Itkis discloses that “[i]n the automatic mode 39, the player only
enters (via the touch screen display 9) the bingo card identification number
(ID); the rest of the monitoring of the current status of the game is
automatically done by the slave game device 7” (id. at col. 4, ll. 49-54).
7. Itkis discloses that in the manual mode, “the player actively
participates in the process of marking the matching bingo numbers 30 by
touching respective numbers in the window 20” (id. at col. 4, ll. 56-58).
8. Fisk discloses a “computer network which manages multiple
simultaneous bingo games having a potentially large number of bingo cards”
(Fisk, abstract). The “network includes at least two computers, each of
which stores an electronic representation of bingo cards from an ongoing,
real-time bingo game” (id. at col. 4, ll. 19-21).
9. Fisk discloses that “[a]s each bingo number is called as part of the
real-time bingo game, the bingo number is delivered to all computers in the
network, and the computers simultaneously and in parallel compare the
called numbers to those bingo cards stored in each respective computer” (id.
at col. 4, ll. 21-26).
10. Fisk discloses that “[w]hen a computer identifies a bingo card that
has achieved a predetermined pattern of marked locations, the computer
signals this event, so that the bingo game can be halted before an additional
number is drawn” (id. at col. 4, ll. 26-29).
11. Fisk discloses that “pre-printed bingo cards are distributed
electronically to public locations, in advance of the game, for example
Appeal 2009-005237
Application 10/845,954

6
through lottery networks to lottery machines, through ATM networks to
ATMs, or by printing bingo cards in available spaces on instant lottery game
pieces” (id. at col. 6, ll. 45-49).
12. Fisk discloses that after choosing a pre-printed card, a player “can
then validate the card to participate in a bingo game by submitting payment
for the game. . . . The bingo card will then be included in the pool of cards
for the selected game.” (Id. at col. 6, ll. 55-60.)
13. Fisk discloses that “[o]nce a player has obtained a bingo card of
interest, the player enters into the bingo game through one of a number of
possible steps” (id. at col. 10, ll. 6-8), such as entering account information
via an ATM machine or the Internet (id. at col. 10, ll. 8-24).
14. Fisk discloses that “[o]nce a player has entered the game and
received a receipt number, and/or a printed receipt for the player’s entry, the
player will then participate in the game by watching the drawing of bingo
numbers” (id. at col. 11, ll. 37-40).
15. Fisk discloses that “[a]fter watching a bingo game, a player may
determine that the player has won a prize or payout in the bingo game. If
this occurs, the player may redeem the prize or payout in one of a number of
ways.” (Id. at col. 11, ll. 59-62.) For example, the player can take their
identifier or receipt to a lottery retail site for verification and payment (id. at
col. 11, ll. 63-67).
16. Fisk discloses that, alternatively, “the player’s account is
automatically credited 86 with a payout when the bingo game computer
network 10 determines if the player has won a payout” (id. at col. 12, ll.
6-8).
Appeal 2009-005237
Application 10/845,954

7
Principles of Law
“The test of obviousness vel non is statutory. It requires that one
compare the claim’s ‘subject matter as a whole’ with the prior art ‘to which
said subject matter pertains.’” In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1569 (Fed. Cir.
1995) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103). As a result, § 103 requires “a searching
comparison of the claimed invention–including all its limitations–with the
teaching of the prior art.” Id. at 1572.
“We must still be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of
references to reach the claimed invention without any explanation as to how
or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed
invention.” Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1374 n.3
(Fed. Cir. 2008).
Analysis
Itkis discloses a gaming system in which a player can choose to play
bingo in manual daub mode or automatic daub mode. The choice of daub
mode is made along with the player’s game play request; i.e., the player
requests to play either “manual bingo” or “automatic bingo.” In Itkis’
system, the game play request is not separate from the daub mode input, and
the daub mode is not set in response to the player’s login input.
Fisk discloses a system for managing large-scale bingo games
involving widely distributed cards. In Fisk’s system, players enter their card
in a game via any of several different routes and can follow the game by
marking their cards to determine whether they have won. Fisk discloses,
however, that regardless of whether the players are following the game, the
computer system “compare[s] the called numbers to those bingo cards stored
in each respective computer” (FF 9) and stops the game when a winning
Appeal 2009-005237
Application 10/845,954

8
card is identified (FF 10). Thus, Fisk’s system provides no opportunity for a
player to choose between an automatic daub mode and a manual daub mode.
We agree with Appellants that neither Itkis nor Fisk discloses “a daub
selection controller for . . . setting the daub mode for the player station as the
first daub mode in response to the player login input,” as required by part
(d)(iii) of claim 27. In addition, the Examiner has not adequately explained
why this limitation would have been obvious in view of the references, since
Itkis’ system requires selection of daub mode as part of a game request, and
Fisk’s system provides no daub mode selection at all.
Conclusion of Law
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that
Fisk teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 27 that are missing from
Itkis.
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claims 27-31 as obvious in view of Itkis
and Fisk.
REVERSED

lp

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