Ex Parte Little et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 14, 2016

12253525 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/253,525 10/17/2008
16629 7590 10/18/2016
Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP (IGT - Foley)
Two North LaSalle Street
Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60602-3801
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
William C. LITTLE
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.
100598-0260 9525
EXAMINER
HOEL, MATTHEW D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2016 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):
patents@IGT.com
amasia@ngelaw.com
ipusmail@ngelaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM C. LITTLE and DANIEL DE W AAL
Appeal2014-001059
Application 12/253,525 1
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and
MARK A. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
William C. Little and Daniel De Waal (Appellants) seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's Final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--8,
and 27--40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Acres (US
6,254,483 Bl, iss. July 3, 2001), Cockerille (US 2003/0032485 Al, Feb. 13,
2003), and LeMay (US 2007/0243925 Al, pub. Oct. 18, 2007).2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is IGT. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 3 and 9-26 have been canceled. Final Act. 2; see also Appeal Br.
9, 10, Claims App.
Appeal2014-001059
Application 12/253,525
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 31, and 3 5 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below
and illustrates the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations
emphasized.
1. A method comprising:
transmitting, over a network, data in real time from a
microprocessor controlled casino gaming machine, the gaming
machine comprising a memory and being configured to run game
software that cannot be altered once certified; the data relating to
game activity of a game running on the gaming machine to be
used by an external system to calculate a progressive bonus; the
gaming machine further comprising a virtual slot machine
interface board (SMIB), the virtual SMIB comprising a protected
process configured to store real time meters in an isolated
compartment of the memory:
receiving, at the gaming machine, from the external
system, data in real time over the network relating to the
progressive bonus;
receiving, at the gaming machine, from the external
system, a request over the network to create a first meter to track
an item;
creating, at the gaming machine, the first meter in the
virtual SMIB after the game software has been certified and
installed on the gaming machine.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 27--40 over Acres, Cockerille,
andLeMay
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--8, and 27--40 over Acres, Cockerille, and LeMay.
See Appeal Br. 6-8; see also Reply Br. 2--4.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner first finds that Acres discloses most
of the limitations of the claim, including "creating a meter to track the item,"
2
Appeal2014-001059
Application 12/253,525
while Cockerille "teaches verification of certified gaming software operating
on the gaming machine." Final Act. 2-3 (citing Cockerille, i-f 10). In
concluding that "Acres and Cockerille disclose the invention substantially as
claimed except specifically that the gaming machine further comprises a
virtual slot machine interface board (SMIB), the virtual SMIB comprises a
protected process configured to store real time meters in an isolated
compartment of memory," the Examiner also finds that LeMay "teaches
using a virtual machine (i.e. virtualization) to isolate the gaming process
from other processes and share system resources (par 130-131)," and
reasons that "[i]t would have been obvious ... to have modified Acres and
Cockerille in view of LeMay in order to share the resources of the game
machine and lower costs associated with adding new functions to the gaming
machine in order to increase casino revenue (citing LeMay, i-f 191 ). Id. at 3-
4.
Appellants initially point out that not only are Acres and Cockerille
"silent with respect to a gaming machine comprising a virtual slot machine
inter/ ace board (SMIB), the virtual SMIB comprising a protected process
configured to store real time meters in an isolated compartment of the
memory," but that LeMay fails to cure the deficiencies of Acres and
Cockerille, because "LeMay is silent with respect to SMIB's generally."
Appeal Br. 7.3 In particular, Appellants contend that LeMay does not
"suggest a virtual SMIB created in the gaming machine after the game
software has been certified and installed," where "the virtual SMIB
3 Appellants direct our attention to paragraphs 008 and 0221-0243 of the
application as originally filed "for a better understanding" of the features
recited by the claims. See Appeal Br. 6.
3
Appeal2014-001059
Application 12/253,525
including a protected process configured to store real time meters in an
isolated compartment of the memory," and where "the gaming machine
[includes] a memory and [is] configured to run game software that cannot be
altered once certified." Id. While acknowledging that LeMay "discusses
resource partitioning as an example of virtualization," Appellants reason that
"such disclosure is insufficient to suggest the presently claimed features of a
virtual SMlB." Id. at 7, 8 (also citing LeMay, i-fi-f 130, 131).
In response, the Examiner notes that "[Appellants point] to par 8 of
the instant application for [an] initial understanding of a slot machine
interface board (SMIB)," discussed as "a hardware version of the SMIB."
Ans. 3. With that description in mind, the Examiner "initially asserts that, in
general, a slot machine is equivalent to a computer with specialized
programming," and reasons that "[ w ]hat is both claimed and further
discussed in the instant Specification is a virtual SMIB (emphasis added),"
finding that "virtual SMIB is the software equivalent of a hardware SMIB."
Id.
The Examiner continues by reasoning that the cited passages of
LeMay "specifically [disclose] a virtual gaming machine," and "would
clearly include a virtual hardware interface among other software modules
which allows for input/output operations of the virtual system." Id. at 3--4.
The Examiner "interprets this to equate to a physical interface board such as
the claimed SMIB, to appear [] as a virtual SMIB or software version of the
physical interface, as taught in par 130." Id. at 4. The Examiner also finds
that "[w]ith regard to the creation of the real-time meters, LeMay teaches a
virtual player tracking module that tracks total and partial coin-in or
4
Appeal2014-001059
Application 12/253,525
wagering meters among other useful metering information for the game
system." Id. at 5 (citing LeMay, i-f 167).
Based on the foregoing, the Examiner concludes that "[t]he claimed
virtual SMIB fails to deviate from any of the functions that LeMay performs
and is nothing more than a software module located within either a virtual
gaming machine or a physical game machine, [and that] LeMay clearly
discloses both types of systems." Id.
However Appellants explain that "LeMay does not discuss the use of
a SMIB, or the use of a virtual SMIB," and contend that "LeMay generically
discusses the virtualization of computing resources and the creation of
virtual gaming machines," but "at no point does LeMay disclose any
specifics regarding the implementation of a virtual SMIB." Reply Br. 2
(citing LeMay, i-fi-1130, 131, and 153-158). More specifically, Appellants
contend that "LeMay does not disclose, teach, or suggest 'creating, at the
gaming machine, the first meter in the virtual SMIB after the game software
has been certified and installed on the gaming machine,' as recited in Claim
1." Id. at 3. We agree.
Appellants also point out that, contrary to the Examiner's findings,
"[p ]aragraph 167 of LeMay does not relate to creating meters ... in a
virtual SMIB on the gaming machine, but rather [to] tracking game play
activities at a remote host [that] is not part of the gaming machine." Id.
(citing LeMay, i-fi-1163-165 and Fig. 3B). Again, we agree with Appellants
that "the remote host [of LeMay] cannot be considered 'a virtual slot
machine interface board (SMIB), the virtual SMIB comprising a protected
process configured to store real time meters in an isolated compartment of
the memory,' as recited in Claim 1." Id. at 3--4.
5
Appeal2014-001059
Application 12/253,525
We therefore find that the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness
is not supported by evidence and, thus, cannot stand. See In re Warner, 379
F .2d 1011, 1017 (CCP A 1967) (Holding that "[ t ]he legal conclusion of
obviousness must be supported by facts. Where the legal conclusion is not
supported by facts it cannot stand.").
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4--8, and 27--40 over Acres, Cockerille, and LeMay.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--8, and 27--40.
REVERSED
6