Ex Parte Lind et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2017

14016172 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/016,172 09/02/2013 Clifton Lind 988-1020-C3 9237
92852 7590
Multimedia Games, Inc.
Attn: JP Cody, Esq.
206 Wild Basin South
Austin, TX 78746
11/15/2017 EXAMINER
COBURN, CORBETT B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/15/2017 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):
jp.cody@mm-games.com
peggy. zaongo @ mm-games .com
jpv2u@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CLIFTON LIND, GORDON T. GRAVES, GARY L. LOEBIG,
JEFFERSON C. LIND, JOSEPH R. ENZMINGER,
RODNEY L. WILL YARD, and ROBERT LANNERT
Appeal 2017-0001291
Application 14/016,1722
Technology Center 3700
Before ANTON W. FETTING, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1—16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed June 8, 2015), the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Oct. 5, 2015), and the Final Office
Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Dec. 8, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Multimedia Games,
Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-000129
Application 14/016,172
BACKGROUND
According to the Specification, “the invention relates to a bingo-type
gaming system in which a set of bingo card representations is matched with
bingo designations to produce bingo results that are displayed to players
using a representation unrelated to the bingo-type game.” Spec. 2,11. 3—6.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A method for operating a gaming system, the method
including:
(a) with a data processing system included in the gaming
system, matching a number of game designations from a
designation draw for a bingo game to a number of bingo card
representations in play for the bingo game;
(b) identifying a game ending result with the data
processing system, the game ending result being produced upon
matching a first bingo card representation in the number of bingo
card representations with a game ending number of game
designations from the designation draw for the bingo game to
generate a game ending pattern of matched card locations on the
first bingo card representation;
(c) with the data processing system, identifying a
respective bingo game result for each other bingo card
representation in the number of bingo card representations in
play for the bingo game, the respective bingo game result for a
second bingo card representation in the number of bingo card
representations comprising a first winning result which is
produced upon matching the second bingo card representation
with the game ending number of game designations from the
designation draw for the bingo game to generate a first winning
pattern of matched card locations on the second bingo card
representation, the first winning pattern of matched card
locations being dissimilar to the game ending pattern of matched
card locations;
2
Appeal 2017-000129
Application 14/016,172
(d) displaying a game ending result representation at an
electronic player station in the gaming system for a player
associated with the first bingo card representation, the game
ending result representation being correlated to the game ending
pattern of matched card locations and including a graphical
representation of a result in a reel-type game in which a
respective result is shown by a number of spinning reels which
come to rest to display an array of indicia; and
(e) displaying a first winning result representation at an
electronic player station in the gaming system for a player
associated with the second bingo card representation, the first
winning result representation being correlated to the first
winning pattern of matched card locations and including a
graphical representation of a first winning result in the reel-type
game.
Br. 13.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to non-statutory subject matter.
DISCUSSION
As a general matter, we determine whether a claim is directed to
patent-eligible subject matter based on the Supreme Court’s framework, as
articulated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), which
follows the two-part test set forth in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012). That is, a claim fails to recite
patent-eligible subject matter if, in accordance with the first part of the Alice
test, the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and if, in accordance with the
second part of the test, the claim lacks any further claim limitations that,
when “considered]. . . both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’
. . . ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.”
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 79).
3
Appeal 2017-000129
Application 14/016,172
In this case, Appellants argue only that the Examiner erred in
determining that the claims are directed to an abstract idea under step one of
the Alice analysis. See Br. 10 (“Because the claims do not seek to cover an
abstract idea itself, the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter,
and it is unnecessary to consider the second part of the [Alice]
framework.”) With respect to independent claims 1 and 6, Appellants
assert that the claims are directed “to a specific method for operating a
gaming system tied to a particular apparatus” and thus, these claims “do not
merely recite an abstract idea so as to preempt that idea for all uses and
applications.” Id. at 9—10 (emphasis omitted). Similarly, with respect to
independent claim 12, Appellants assert that the claim “do[es] not merely
recited the abstract idea of ‘displaying a bingo result’ so as to preempt that
idea for all uses and applications.” Id. at 10 (emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument because we agree with
the Examiner that the claims are directed to an abstract idea under step one
of the Alice analysis. Claim 1, for example, is directed to a method of
operating a gaming system including steps related to matching numbers on a
bingo card with a bingo number draw; identifying bingo game ending
results, and displaying bingo game ending results. We agree with the
Examiner that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of managing a
bingo game and displaying bingo game results. In this regard, we find the
claims here similar to claims previously found to be patent ineligible by the
Federal Circuit. See, e.g., Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 Fed. Appx.
1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014). And like the claims addressed in Planet Bingo, we
agree with the Examiner that the claims here can be carried out mentally
using pen and paper or with existing, conventional, and long in use computer
4
Appeal 2017-000129
Application 14/016,172
technology. See id. 576 Fed. Appx. 1007-08 (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson,
409 U.S. 63,67 (1972)).
Further, to the extent Appellants argue that the claims are not directed
to an abstract idea under the Alice analysis because they do not preempt all
uses or applications for displaying a bingo result, we are not persuaded.
Br. 10. Although the Supreme Court has described “the concern that drives
this exclusionary principle [i.e., the exclusion of abstract ideas from patent
eligible subject matter] as one of pre-emption,” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354,
characterizing pre-emption as a driving concern for patent eligibility is not
the same as characterizing pre-emption as the sole test for patent eligibility.
“The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the
basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability” and “[f]or this reason,
questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis.”
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354). Yet although “preemption may
signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption
does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Id. Thus, we consider that any
concerns related to pre-emption have been addressed as part of the
Examiner’s Alice analysis, with which we agree.
Accordingly, because Appellants do not apprise us of reversible error
in the rejection, we sustain the rejection of claims 1—16 as directed to
ineligible subject matter.
5
Appeal 2017-000129
Application 14/016,172
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1—16.
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
6