Ex Parte Moshal

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2013

11132850 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 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.
11/132,850 05/19/2005 INV001Martin Moshal 04-641-A 8117
20306 7590 03/22/2013
MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
300 S. WACKER DRIVE
32ND FLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
THOMAS, ERIC M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3714
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2013 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 MARTIN MOSHAL
________________

Appeal 2011-005604
Application 11/132,850
Technology Center 3700
________________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s 1
final decision rejecting claims 32-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being 2
anticipated by Walker (US 6,012,983, issued Jan. 11, 2000). Oral argument 3
was heard on March 7, 2013. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 4
We REVERSE. 5

1 The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Waterleaf
Limited.
Appeal 2011-005604
Application 11/132,850

2
Claims 32 and 36 are independent: 1
32. A control system for a casino game 2
having a man-machine interface operable by a 3
player of the casino game to regulate the progress 4
of the casino game, the man-machine interface 5
including 6
a switch means operable by the player to 7
selectively switch the man-machine interface 8
between any one of at least two modes, the player 9
being capable of regulating the progress of the 10
particular casino game in each one of the at least 11
two modes of the man-machine interface, 12
wherein a first one of the at 13
least two modes of the man-machine 14
interface is a regular mode in which 15
the man-machine interface is of a 16
predetermined complexity and 17
a second one of the at least two 18
modes of the man-machine interface 19
is an expert mode in which the man-20
machine interface is of an increased 21
complexity with an increased number 22
of clickable icons relative to that of 23
the regular mode, 24
the increased number of clickable icons 25
providing the player with additional game 26
functionality relative to that available in the 27
regular mode. 28
36. A method for controlling the progress 29
of a casino game having a man-machine interface 30
operable by a player of the casino game to regulate 31
the progress of the casino game, the method 32
including a step of 33
selectively switching the man-machine 34
interface between at least 35
Appeal 2011-005604
Application 11/132,850

3
a regular mode in which the 1
man-machine interface is of a 2
predetermined complexity and 3
an expert mode in which the 4
man-machine interface is of an 5
increased complexity with an 6
increased number of clickable icons 7
relative to that of the regular mode, 8
the increased number of clickable 9
icons providing the player with 10
additional game functionality relative 11
to that available in the regular mode, 12
the player being capable of regulating the 13
progress of the particular game in each of the 14
regular and expert modes of the man-machine 15
interface. 16
Walker describes a system 1 including multiple slot machines 2 17
communicating with a slot network server 4 through a slot network 3. 18
(Walker, col. 3, ll. 54-60.) At least one of of the slot machines 2 19
communicates with player tracking device 300. The player tracking device 20
300 includes a keypad 330 and a display 320 having a touch screen. 21
(Walker, col. 4, ll. 51-54 and 64-65.) Each slot machine 2 is configured to 22
provide both manual play and automated play. 23
A player commences manual play by either inserting a coin or using 24
electronic credit and then pressing a starting controller 250. Once the 25
starting controller 250 is pressed, the slot machine 2 determines an outcome 26
using a number generator 240. The slot machine 2 then spins and stops the 27
reels 262, 264, 266 so as to display a combination of symbols corresponding 28
to the generated outcome. When a player wins, the slot machine 2 stores 29
electronic credit in a memory and displays the amount of the credit in a 30
video display area 270. (Walker, col. 4, ll. 22-37.) 31
Appeal 2011-005604
Application 11/132,850

4
A player commences automatic play by choosing to select automated 1
slot machine play. (Walker, col. 7, ll. 43-44.) The mechanism by which the 2
player selects automated play is not described. Once the player adds funds 3
for use during the automated play, the slot machine 2 displays a prompt on 4
the display 320 of the player tracking device 300 requesting that the player 5
enter player parameter selections for use during automated play. (Walker, 6
col. 5, ll. 1-3 and col. 8, ll. 4-7.) The player enters these player parameter 7
selections using the touch screen of the display 320 or the keypad 330. 8
(Walker, col. 8, ll. 7-9.) Once automated play commences, the slot machine 9
2 automatically and periodically plays games (that is, periodically 10
determines outcomes and updates the player’s credit accordingly) 11
consistently with the player parameters entered by the player. (See generally 12
Walker, cols. 9-12.) 13
The Examiner finds that the keypad 330 or touch screen of Walker’s 14
player tracking device 300 corresponds to the man-machine interface recited 15
in claims 32 and 36. (Ans. 3.) Walker does not describe Walker’s keypad 16
330 or touch screen as displaying a graphical user interface including 17
clickable icons. Neither does the Examiner articulate sufficient technical 18
reasoning to establish a reasonable basis for belief that Walker’s keypad 330 19
or touch screen necessarily displays a graphical user interface including 20
clickable icons. In particular, the Examiner has not articulated sufficient 21
technical reasoning to establish that Walker’s player tracking device 300 22
requires a graphical user interface including clickable icons in order to 23
prompt a player to enter player parameters and to receive the player 24
parameters from the player. (See generally Ans. 3-4 and 8-9; see also App. 25
Br. 7-8.) 26
Appeal 2011-005604
Application 11/132,850

5
Since the Examiner has not established that Walker’s player tracking 1
device 300 displays any clickable icons in any mode, the Examiner has not 2
established that Walker describes a control system including a switch means 3
operable by the player to selectively switch a man-machine interface (that is, 4
the player tracking device 300) from a regular mode to an expert mode in 5
which the man-machine interface is of an increased complexity with an 6
increased number of clickable icons relative to that of the regular mode. 7
Neither has the Examiner established that Walker’s system 1 is susceptible 8
of use to perform the step of selectively switching the man-machine 9
interface from a regular mode to an expert mode in which the man-machine 10
interface is of an increased complexity with an increased number of 11
clickable icons relative to that available in the regular mode. Since Walker 12
does not disclose each and every limitation of either independent claim 32 or 13
independent claim 36, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 32-37 under 14
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Walker. 15
16
DECISION 17
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 32-37. 18
19
REVERSED 20
21
22
23
mls 24