Ex Parte Loose et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2013

10369021 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2013)

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.
10/369,021 02/19/2003 Timothy C. Loose 247079-000164USPT 7438
70243 7590 07/30/2013
NIXON PEABODY LLP
300 S. Riverside Plaza
16th Floor
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
COBURN, CORBETT B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3714
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TIMOTHY C. LOOSE
and WAYNE H. ROTHSCHILD
____________

Appeal 2011-007844
Application 10/369,021
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 55 and 58-86. App. Br. 3. Claims 1-54, 56, and 57 are cancelled. Id.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2011-007844
Application 10/369,021

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 55, 64, 72, and 79 are independent. Claim 55 is reproduced:
55. A method for allowing a player at a gaming terminal to
communicate a message to a remote gaming terminal, the
method comprising:
generating a personal message at the gaming terminal in
response to the input of the player at the gaming
terminal;
selecting an address associated with the remote gaming
terminal to which the personal message is to be
delivered;
displaying a graphical map showing the physical location
of gaming terminals including the location of the
gaming terminal in relation to the location of the
remote gaming terminal to which the message may
be delivered;
transmitting the personal message to a central system
over a local area network, the central system in
communication with a plurality of gaming
terminals; and
transmitting the personal message from the central
system to the remote gaming terminal.

REJECTIONS
Claims 55, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64-68, 70-75, 77-83, 85 and 86 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wells (US 6,846,238 B2; iss.
Jan. 25, 2005)1.
Claims 60, 69, 76, and 84 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wells and Zenith (US 6,519,711 B1; iss. Feb. 11, 2003).2

1 The caption of this rejection lists claims 55 and 58-63, but the discussion
addresses claims 55, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64-68, 70-75, 77-83, 85 and 86, so we
treat the rejection as applying to the claims in the discussion. See Ans. 3-5.
2 The caption lists claims 60, 69, and 84 but the discussion addresses the
limitation that the player selects the personal message from a menu of
Appeal 2011-007844
Application 10/369,021

3
Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Wells and AOL Instant Messenger ™.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claims 55, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64-68, 70-75, 77-83, 85
and 86 as a group. See App. Br. 5. We select claim 55 as representative.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Examiner found that Wells discloses a method for allowing a
player at a gaming terminal to communicate a message to a remote gaming
terminal via email and messaging (col. 4, ll. 10-15). Ans. 3. The Examiner
also found that Wells teaches a locator service (col. 4, l. 12) and reasoned
that it would be necessary to have a map of the casino for such a service and
it therefore would have been obvious to modify Wells to display a graphical
map showing physical locations of gaming terminals for the locator service.
Ans. 4, 7. The Examiner further found that Wells teaches tracking a location
of mobile gaming machines with GPS and reasoned that a skilled artisan
would recognize that positioning of the gaming machine could be plotted on
a map, as GPS implies the existence of a map to plot the gaming machine’s
position. Ans. 8. The Examiner also found that a skilled artisan would
realize that every casino has a map or floor plan with the location of every
gaming machine and this reads on claim 55. Ans. 7-8. The Examiner
reasoned that a locator service must show a map of the casino and this would
include the location of all gaming machines and the location of another
person, place, or thing and display that location. Ans. 9-10.

predefined messages, which is recited in claims 60, 69, 76, and 84.
Appellant treats claim 76 as included in this rejection. See App. Br. 5.
Appeal 2011-007844
Application 10/369,021

4
Appellants argue that there is no description of what “locator service”
means in Wells and it is improper to assume that the “locator service” may
include a graphical map with locations of gaming terminals or other features.
App. Br. 7. Appellants assert that Wells does not disclose what is being
located and nothing elaborates on what the locator service entails, so that it
is improper to assert that the term includes a map as there is no evidence that
the words “locator service” in Wells would be understood to include a map.
Reply Br. 4. These attorney arguments are not persuasive as the Examiner
did not find that the locator service includes a map; rather, the Examiner
found that Wells discloses a locator service that displays the locations of
people, places, and things, and reasoned that it would have been obvious to
display a map to highlight these locations in a casino on the device of Wells
for implementing the locator service for a user. See Ans. 9-10.
Appellants also argue that a locator service is commonly understood
to provide information for locating a desired object and this may or may not
encompass the actual physical location of the object with or without a map,
and may simply list the service in response to a location request. App. Br. 8;
Reply Br. 4-5. Appellants further argue that even if a graphical map could
be deduced from a locator service, the most likely meaning is locations in
the casino such as a cashier, vendor, or snack bar and not a gaming machine
for the purpose of sending a message. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 5. Appellants
also assert that having the ability to determine a location of a mobile device
via GPS in Wells does not necessarily involve a map or providing a player
with access to a map. Id. Again, Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us
of error in the Examiner’s findings and determination that it would have
been obvious to present a graphical map on Wells’ device for the locater
Appeal 2011-007844
Application 10/369,021

5
service to operate more effectively. The Examiner had a sound basis for this
finding as Wells discloses a game player that “may be configured to present
. . . a locator service or a hotel/casino service.” Col. 4, ll. 8-13. Appellants
acknowledge that a locator service provides physical locations of things.
Reply Br. 4-5. The Examiner did not find that Wells uses a map for the
locator service; instead, the Examiner found that use of a locator service
suggests a map such that it would have been obvious to display a map of the
locations of the people, places, and things that a locator service presents to a
user to help a user find the location of the items in a casino. Ans. 7-9.
Appellants further argue that the critical issue is not whether a skilled
artisan could display a map image on a display but whether Wells would
motivate a skilled artisan to do so. Appellants argue that the mere existence
of a floor plan map of power or network cables in the casino would not lead
a skilled artisan to design a gaming machine with a display of such a map
because there is no indication that such maps could display particular
machines to which messages are directed, and casinos are loath to provide
such maps to players. Reply Br. 2. Again, Appellants’ attorney arguments
are not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s findings that Wells discloses a
gaming device with a locator service to provide locations of people, places,
and things and that it would have been obvious to display some or all of this
information on a graphical map, which could be created based on facilities
maps of a casino. The Examiner also found that modifying Wells in this
way would be within the level of skill in the art and yield predictable results
as casinos have maps of floor plans that identify gaming terminals, and
Wells tracks gaming devices with a GPS feature that is known to use maps
to highlight current locations and destinations of users. Ans. 4, 7-8.
Appeal 2011-007844
Application 10/369,021

6
Appellants assert that the use of a GPS system to track a location of a
mobile device in Wells would not apply to fixed gaming terminals and thus
it would not be obvious to apply Wells. Reply Br. 3. This argument is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 55, which merely recites “a gaming
terminal.” Appellants disclose that the distributed network for the gaming
terminals may be a wired network or a wireless network. Spec. 8, ll. 9-16.
Finally, Appellants argue that the Examiner has not met the burden for
establishing obviousness under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398
(2007). In particular, Appellants argue that the Answer suggests that it is
obvious to combine familiar elements by known methods for predictable
results but there is no evidence of a casino floor map with gaming machines
in Wells or other references. Reply Br. 5-6. This argument is not persuasive
of Examiner error because, as discussed supra, the Examiner found that
Wells discloses a locator service that provides locations of people, places,
and things, which Appellants do not dispute. The Examiner reasoned that it
would have been obvious to present a map of the location of items found by
the location service so that a person can find those items, including gaming
terminals. Appellants attorney arguments do not persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s findings or conclusions of obviousness including the finding that
casinos have maps of their facilities including wiring diagrams for gaming
terminals, and it would have been obvious to use this information to provide
a graphical map of terminal locations in the casino for a locator service of
Wells’ device to facilitate location of terminals and other items in the casino
with the locator service. We sustain the rejection of claims 55, 58, 59, 61,
62, 64-68, 70-75, 77-83, 85 and 86.

Appeal 2011-007844
Application 10/369,021

7
Obviousness Rejections of claims 60, 63, 69, 76, and 84
Appellants argue that claims 60, 63, 69, 76, and 84 are allowable due
to their dependence from claims that were improperly rejected over Wells in
the preceding rejection. See App. Br. 5, 9. Because we sustain the rejection
of claims 55, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64-68, 70-75, 77-83, 85 and 86, this argument is
not persuasive. We sustain the rejection of claims 60, 63, 69, 76, and 84.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 55 and 58-86.

AFFIRMED

mls