Ex Parte Mannion

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 25, 2009

11246376 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 25, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte TIMOTHY MANNION
__________

Appeal 2009-000830
Application 11/246,376
Technology Center 3700
__________

Decided:1June 25, 2009
__________

Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, LORA M. GREEN, and MELANIE L.
McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method
of utilizing a universal casino cash card. The Examiner has rejected the

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-000830
Application 11/246,376

claims as anticipated or obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1 and 3 are pending and on appeal (App. Br. 1). Claims 1 and
3 read as follows:
1. A method of utilizing a universal casino cash card, by a
consumer at member casinos, comprising the steps of:
a) purchasing a casino cash card by a consumer at a member
office using a credit card or cash; wherein said member office is selected
from the group consisting of said member casino, a retail store, a restaurant,
and a spa;
b) deducting service charges by said member office and
forwarding the remaining consumer funds to a central casino office for
crediting the account of the user’s casino cash card to be used at a member
casino;
c) using said casino cash card at said member casino by a
consumer to play, gamble, or purchase goods or services at said member
casino;
d) reviewing the status of said casino cash card at a gaming
terminal to obtain the status or history of transactions made, winnings,
losses, and purchases of goods and services; and
e) securing said casino cash card by placing a security device on
said casino cash card; wherein said security device is selected from the
group consisting of a bar code, a magnetic strip, a micro chip, an electronic
hologram, a fingerprint scan, a biological scan, and a physiological scan.
3. A method of utilizing a universal casino cash card in
accordance with the method of Claim 1, further including the step of
identifying the authorized member casinos on said casino cash card.
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Gatto US 6,149,055 Nov. 21, 2000
Paulsen et al. US 6,712,698 B2 Mar. 30, 2004
Walker et al. US 6,558,255 B2 May 6, 2003
2
Appeal 2009-000830
Application 11/246,376

Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Gatto or under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gatto in view of
Paulsen (Final. Rej. 2).
The Examiner finds that Gatto substantially discloses the method of
claim 1 (Ans. 3-4). In particular, the Examiner finds:
In order to have a universal casino cash card to be used by
players, a registration or purchasing step would inherently have
to be implemented or else players and users would not
physically have the card to use. Gatto discloses several
different type[s] of institutions in which the universal casino
card may make transactions to purchase goods and services. . . .
[A]ny of these point of service locations are capable of
distributing the card or [providing] the ability to purchase or
register the card.
(Id.) The Examiner also finds that Gatto discloses “securing the casino cash
card by placing a security device on the casino cash card[,] . . . the security
device [being] selected from the group consisting of a bar code, a magnetic
strip . . . , a microchip, an electronic hologram, a fingerprint scan . . . , a
biological scan, and a physiological scan” (id. at 4).
Alternatively, the Examiner finds that, if Appellant challenges the
inherency of purchasing or registering the card, Paulsen “teaches a smart
card interface that allows a user to obtain a ‘blank’ magnetic striped card to
be used at a gaming machine” (id.). The Examiner finds that “Paulsen
teaches the implementation of purchasing or registering a universal cash
card [at] a location from the group consisting of a member casino, a retail
store, a restaurant, and a spa” (id. at 5). The Examiner also finds:
It [was] well known in the art at the time the invention was
made to allow users of cash cards to place additional credit onto
a card at a predetermined institution. These institutions are
3
Appeal 2009-000830
Application 11/246,376

typically any of the facilities that have decided to be affiliated
with that card. These institutions would typically qualify, as a
point of service and one would be motivated to incorporate this
type of system in order to provide convenience for the user of
the cash cards.
(Id.) The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to
incorporate the distribution methods taught in Paulsen with that of Gatto in
order to allow a user to purchase a casino card . . . at a member office using
a credit card or cash” (id.). The Examiner also relies on Walker as evidence
that it was known in the art to purchase casino cash cards from a casino (id.
at 7).
With regard to claim 3, the Examiner finds that “Gatto discloses a
method of utilizing a universal casino cash card in accordance with the step
of identifying the authorized member casinos (ie: associated with an
institution or establishment) on the casino cash card” (id. at 5). In addition,
the Examiner finds that “the identification of authorized member casinos [is]
old and well known in the art of credit and debit cards” (id. at 8). The
Examiner also relies on Walker as evidence of this. In particular, the
Examiner finds that Walker shows “a card that is identified and associated
with a ‘casino X.’” (Id. at 9.)
Appellant argues that Gatto and Paulsen do not show or teach:
(a) “having the member office being selected from the group consisting of
the member casino, a retail store, a restaurant, and a spa” or (b) “securing
where the security device is selected from the group consisting of a bar code,
a magnetic strip, a micro chip, an electronic hologram, a fingerprint scan, a
biological scan, and a physiological scan” (App. Br. 5). With regard to
claim 3, Appellant additionally argues that Gatto and Paulsen do not disclose
4
Appeal 2009-000830
Application 11/246,376

or teach “identifying the authorized member casinos on the casino cash
card” (id.).
ISSUES
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that it
would have been obvious to obtain a casino cash card at a member office
selected from the group consisting of a member casino, a retail store, a
restaurant, and a spa?
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that it
would have been obvious to secure a casino cash card with a security device
selected from the group consisting of a bar code, a magnetic strip, a micro
chip, an electronic hologram, a fingerprint scan, a biological scan, and a
physiological scan?
With regard to claim 3, has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred
in concluding that it would have been obvious to identify the authorized
member casinos on the casino cash card?
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Gatto discloses an electronic fund transfer (EFT) system
comprising an identification (ID) card “having a magnetic strip located
thereon” (Gatto, col. 1, ll. 21-22, col. 3, ll. 34-35, & col. 6, ll. 23-25).
2. In particular, Gatto discloses:
stor[ing] one or more customized user-defined transactions on a
magnetic medium of the user ID card so that once a user inserts
the ID card into a card reader at a terminal and enters valid
verification data (e.g., a PIN), a menu containing choices
corresponding to one or more of these user-defined transactions
is displayed.
(Id. at col. 3, ll. 49-54.)
5
Appeal 2009-000830
Application 11/246,376

3. Gatto discloses that “the term ‘transaction’ is intended to
broadly describe a wide variety of activities that are or may be performed
using an EFT system,” including “operating gaming devices (e.g., casino
games, lottery games)” (id. at col. 5, ll. 36-48).
4. Gatto also discloses that “the ID card may be used as a
‘universal’ card to avoid the need for a user to carry a number of different ID
cards such as ATM cards and/or credit or debit cards” (id. at col. 11, ll. 13-
16).
5. In addition, Gatto discloses that “a universal card may have
information stored thereon for a user’s . . . casino card(s)” (id. at col. 11,
ll. 20-23).
6. Gatto also discloses that the “institution/account information for
this embodiment may be written to the ID card in a known manner and cain
[sic, can] be formatted in a convenient way” (id. at col. 11, ll. 45-47).
7. In addition, Gatto discloses:
[T]he user may be identified by a user identification card
unique to each user (or account), by entry of alphanumeric
information by a keypad or similar input mechanism, or by
physical characteristics of the user, for example, by voice
recognition, by fingerprint recognition, or a combination of
these or other techniques.
(Id. at col. 12, ll. 5-11.)
8. Paulsen discloses “methods and apparatus for providing player
tracking services and related gaming services on a gaming machine”
(Paulsen, col. 1, ll. 9-11).
9. Paulsen discloses that “player tracking/accounting systems are
used in most casinos” (id. at col. 2, ll. 4-5).
6
Appeal 2009-000830
Application 11/246,376

10. Paulsen also discloses that “player tacking units have been
primarily designed to allow a player to enter a magnetic striped card and
possibly enter an identification code using a key pad” (id. at col. 2, ll. 27-
30).
11. Paulsen discloses a system including a touch screen display that
may be used as an interface by a player to play games, “view account
information and perform account transactions for accounts such as player
tracking accounts and bank accounts,” and “register a player for a loyalty
program such as a player tracking program” (id. at col. 8, ll. 6-28).
12. In particular, Paulsen discloses:
[A] player that is not a member of a loyalty program, such as
player tracking program, may use the [registration]
interface 260 to join the program at the gaming machine as part
of a “point of play” registration. In one embodiment, the player
may obtain a “blank” magnetic striped card or another type of
loyalty program instrument excepted [sic, accepted] by the card
reader on the gaming machine such as a smart card. Next at the
gaming machine, the player may request a “point of play”
registration.
(Id. at col. 16, ll. 53-64.)
13. Paulsen also discloses that, “[a]fter registration, the magnetic
striped card, or other loyalty point instrument used in the registration
process, may be used by the player to initiate a player tracking session on
other gaming machines” (id. at col. 18, ll. 26-29).
14. As noted it the Specification, “gift cards . . . and various store
prepaid cards used for shopping, dining, golf, vacations, entertainment and
services are well-known in the art” (Spec. 1: 12-13). In addition, it is
7
Appeal 2009-000830
Application 11/246,376

undisputed that “the identification of authorized member[s on the card is]
old and well known in the art of credit and debit cards” (Ans. 8).2
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Obviousness “analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim.” Id. at 418. Instead, it proper to “take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.” Id. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421.
ANALYSIS
Gatto discloses a casino cash card (Findings of Fact (FF) 1-5).
Appellant does not dispute that it would have been obvious to purchase a
casino cash card. Instead, Appellant argues that Gatto and Paulsen do not
show or teach obtaining the card at a member office “selected from the
group consisting of the member casino, a retail store, a restaurant, and a spa”
(App. Br. 5). However, Paulsen clearly discloses obtaining a casino card at
a casino (FF 12). Thus, we do not agree with Appellant that it would not
have been obvious to obtain a casino cash card at a member casino.
Appellant also argues that Gatto and Paulsen do not show or teach
“securing where the security device is selected from the group consisting of

2 The Examiner also relies on Walker as evidence that “the identification of
authorized member casinos [is] old and well known in the art of credit and
debit cards” (Ans. 8-9). Walker discloses a prepaid slot card having the
casino identified on the card (Walker, Fig. 4A).
8
Appeal 2009-000830
Application 11/246,376

a bar code, a magnetic strip, a micro chip, an electronic hologram, a
fingerprint scan, a biological scan, and a physiological scan” (App. Br. 5).
However, both Gatto and Paulsen disclose securing the card with a magnetic
strip (FF 1-2 & 10). In addition, Gatto also discloses securing the card by
physical characteristics of the user, including by fingerprint recognition
(FF 7).
With regard to claim 3, Appellant additionally argues that Gatto and
Paulsen do not disclose or teach “identifying the authorized member casinos
on the casino cash card” (App. Br. 5). However, Gatto does disclose that the
“institution/account information . . . may be written to the ID card in a
known manner and cain [sic, can] be formatted in a convenient way” (FF 6).
In addition, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that “the
identification of authorized member[s on the card is] old and well known in
the art of credit and debit cards” (FF 14). Thus, Appellant has not shown
that identifying the authorized member casinos on the casino cash card
would not have been obvious.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that it
would have been obvious to obtain a casino cash card at a member office
selected from the group consisting of a member casino, a retail store, a
restaurant, and a spa or that it would have been obvious to secure a casino
cash card with a security device selected from the group consisting of a bar
code, a magnetic strip, a micro chip, an electronic hologram, a fingerprint
scan, a biological scan, and a physiological scan. We therefore affirm the
obviousness rejection of claim 1.
9
Appeal 2009-000830
Application 11/246,376

Appellant additionally has not shown that the Examiner erred in
concluding that it would have been obvious to identify the authorized
member casinos on the casino cash card. We therefore also affirm the
obviousness rejection of claim 3.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

Ssc:
EZRA SUTTON, P.A.
PLAZA 9 BUILDING
900 ROUTE 9 NORTH
WOODBRIDGE, NJ 07095
10