Ex Parte Moody

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 9, 2012

11951303 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 9, 2012)

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.
11/951,303 12/05/2007 ERNEST W. MOODY MOODY60 8095
24258 7590 09/10/2012
JOHN EDWARD ROETHEL
5220 Haven Street, Suite 107
Las Vegas, NV 89119
EXAMINER
LAYNO, BENJAMIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3711
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/10/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ERNEST W. MOODY
____________

Appeal 2010-003997
Application 11/951,303
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, GAY ANN SPAHN, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ernest W. Moody (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Lamle (US 5,199,710, issued Apr. 6, 1993). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2010-003997
Application 11/951,303

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates to printing playing cards for a
casino table game, such as Baccarat, at the gaming table, and more
particularly to printing an entire deck of playing cards at the gaming table”
prior to the start of the game. Spec. 1, ll. 7-10. Claim 1 (the sole
independent claim), reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter
on appeal.
1. A method of dealing playing cards at a
gaming table comprising:
a) providing a gaming table and a playing
card printer associated with the gaming table;
b) prior to the start of a card game at the
gaming table, activating the playing card printer to
print out an entire deck of playing cards on
suitable card stock; the entire deck of playing
cards being printed in a random order that varies
from game to game;
c) collating the entire deck of printed
playing cards so that a dealer may use this deck to
deal a card game.

OPINION
The Examiner finds that Lamle discloses independent claim 1’s step a,
but fails to disclose steps b and c. Ans. 3-4. However, the Examiner notes
Lamle discloses that “[t]he distribution of the cards delivered can then be
tailored to simulate an actual situation in which one or more pre-printed
packs are used for dealing and split as necessary.” Ans. 4 (quoting
Lamle, col. 2, ll. 14-17). The Examiner interprets Lamle’s above-quoted
sentence as “suggest[ing] that it would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to program Lamle’s printer 1[5] to pre-print an entire
Appeal 2010-003997
Application 11/951,303

3
deck of playing cards before the start of the card game,” and “[t]hen at the
start of the card game it would have been obvious to have a dealer deal the
printed playing cards from the entire pre-printed deck” so as to more closely
simulate the well-known common steps of dealing playing cards from an
entire pre-printed deck of playing cards by a dealer at the start of a card
game. Ans. 4. The Examiner concludes “this modification would have
made the dealing of cards from Lamle’s printer more familiar to the players,
and therefore attract more players to the card games that use Lamle’s
printer.” Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has misinterpreted the disclosure
of Lamle’s above-quoted sentence in that “[b]ecause the dealer deals one
card at a time during the course of play of a hand of the game, Lamle’s
method would look to the players no different than if the dealer were dealing
one card at a time from an entire pre-printed deck of cards” and thus,
“Lamle’s method simulates the method of play of a traditional card game
even though Lamle does not pre-print an entire deck.” Br. 4-5.
Appellant also argues that “it would not have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art, after reading the Lamle disclosure[,] to print the
entire deck of cards to be used in the game before the start of the game as
required by Claim 1,” because “the Examiner’s purported reason to modify
Lamle to do the opposite of what Lamle specifically teaches is not supported
by the passage of the Lamle disclosure upon which the Examiner relies.”
Br. 5.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has misinterpreted
Lamle’s statement concerning the simulation of an actual situation in which
one or more pre-printed packs of cards are used. Lamle discloses “a method
Appeal 2010-003997
Application 11/951,303

4
and apparatus for supplying playing cards at random to a casino table” and
according to Lamle’s method, “[p]laying cards are supplied into play at a
playing area while a card game is in progress and whenever required by the
rules of the card game and only for immediate use by players.” Lamle, col.
1, ll. 7-8, and Abstract, first sentence. In this way, a deck of any length or
one of infinite length can be simulated so that the problems of card counting
and delays in the shuffling of cards can be avoided. Lamle, col. 3, ll. 40-44.
Lamle specifically chooses to simulate “a deck of any length . . . or, one of
indefinite length” to solve the problem of card counting and delay in
shuffling and chooses not to use pre-printed packs of cards which require
shuffling and which are subject to card counting. Thus, we find that the
Examiner’s reasoning, i.e., that modification of Lamle to print out an entire
deck before the start of game play “would have made the dealing of cards
from Lamle’s printer more familiar to the players, and therefore attract more
players to the card games that use Lamle’s printer” (Ans. 4), lacks a rational
underpinning, because as argued by Appellant, “Lamle’s method would look
to the players no different than if the dealer were dealing one card at a time
from an entire pre-printed deck of cards” (Ans. 5). See KSR Int'l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (holding that “rejections on
obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, and claim 2 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Lamle.

Appeal 2010-003997
Application 11/951,303

5
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 2.

REVERSED

hh