Ex Parte Schlottmann

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2016

11830827 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111830,827 07/30/2007
16629 7590 06/27/2016
Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP (IGT - Foley)
Two North LaSalle Street
Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60602-3801
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Greg Schlottmann
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.
100598-1420
(P00046 l -008)
EXAMINER
HU, KANG
3442
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2016 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 GREG SCHLOTTMANN
Appeal2014-006674
Application 11/830,827
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, and 12-14.2 We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as "IGT." (Appeal Br. 2.)
2 Independent claim 15 has been withdrawn from consideration. (See Non-
Final Action 2-3.)
Appeal2014-006674
Application 11/830,827
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant's invention relates to "gaming machines." (Spec. i-f 2.)
Illustrative Claim
1. An apparatus comprising:
a media interface, the media interface comprising a write
only interface and a media controller, the media controller
communicatively coupled with the write only interface and with
a read/write capable media, the write only interface configured
to enable input to the media and to disable output from the media;
means for connecting the media interface to a gaming
machine;
means for connecting the media interface to the media;
means for executing game play on the gaming machine;
wherein:
the write only interface records, during execution of game
play on the gaming machine, data regarding the game play onto
the media; and
wherein if the media becomes full of data regarding the
game play, the write only interface is configured to overwrite
first in data such that the media always contains the most recent
data regarding the game play.
Sarbin
Shim
Mochizuki
References
us 5,179,517
US 2002/0002685 Al
US 6,961,060 B 1
Rejections
Jan. 12, 1993
Jan.3,2002
Nov. 1, 2005
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Shim, Sarbin, and Mochizuki. (Final Action 3.)
The Examiner rejects claims 10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Shim and Sarbin. (Id. at 5.)
2
Appeal2014-006674
Application 11/830,827
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 3, and 10 each requires "[a] write only
interface" that is configured to "enable input to the media and to disable
output from the media." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds
that Shim discloses such a write-only interface and cites to certain
paragraphs in Shim (i.e., paragraphs 13 and 49) to support this finding. (See
Non-Final Action 3.)
Shim discloses a computer 100 that is "represented by two functional
units, i.e., a CPU 110 and an information processing system 120." (Shim
i-f 49.) With particular reference to information processing system 120, Shim
discloses:
information processing system 120 may include an information
storage unit, information read-only unit, information write-only
unit, and/or information read/write unit. Examples of such units
may include, but not limited to, a hard disk and a hard disk driver,
a floppy disk and a floppy disk driver, a magnetic tape and a
magnetic tape driver, and other conventional information
processing devices utilizing electric, magnetic, and/or optical
properties.
(Id.) Thus, Shim discloses that its information processing system can
include a "write-only unit," and that this write-only unit can be considered
an "information processing device[]."
The Appellant argues that "a write only interface is not the same as a
write only unit" and Shim never "defines the recited 'write-only unit' as a
write-only interface." (Appeal Br. 11.) In this regard, the Appellant cites to
a dictionary that defines word "interface" as "the place at which independent
and often unrelated systems meet and act or communicate with each other."
(Id.)
3
Appeal2014-006674
Application 11/830,827
We are not persuaded by this argument because the Appellant does
not adequately address why Shim's disclosure of a write-only unit (albeit
never mentioning the word "interface") cannot be considered a disclosure of
the claimed write-only interface. 3 As indicated above, Shim equates its
write-only unit to an information processing device; and such a device
would seemingly interface (i.e., meet with, act on, and/or communicate with)
the information it is processing. In other words, Shim discloses providing a
write-only device comprising an information interface.
The Appellant also argues that Shim does not "indicate" that its write-
only unit is configured to enable input to the media and disable output from
the media, as required by the independent claims. (Appeal Br. 11.) The
Appellant points out that this claim language "specifically recites a
relationship between the write only interface and the read/write media."
(Id. at 12.)
We are not persuaded by this argument because the Appellant does
not address the Examiner's finding that "[t]his limitation is inherent in a
write only system." (Non-Final Action 3.) We agree with the Examiner's
implication that a "write-only" modifier, in a computer context, signifies
something through which information can only be written (i.e., "input") and
thus not retrieved (i.e., "output"). Also, as indicated above, Shim discloses
that its information storage unit (i.e., "media") can be "a hard disk," "a
floppy disk," or "magnetic tape," while its write-only information processing
device can be "a hard disk driver," "a floppy disk driver," or "a magnetic
3 There is no ipsissimis verbis test for determining whether a reference
discloses a claim element, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. See
In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
4
Appeal2014-006674
Application 11/830,827
tape driver." (Shim iii! 13, 49.) The interface of a write-only hard disk
driver, for example, would enable input to the hard disk (i.e., the media) and
disable output from the hard disk. Thus, Shim teaches the claimed specific
relationship between the write-only interface and the media.
The Appellant further argues that "Shim is not analogous art."
(Appeal Br. 12.) According to the Appellant, "Shim discloses detecting
unauthorized access" while the claimed invention "relates to backing up
game data," and so Shim cannot be considered in the same field of endeavor.
(Id. at 13.)
We are not persuaded by this argument because the Appellant's
invention "relates to data storage for gaming machines and in particular to a
method and apparatus for storing game or system data on a data storage
device" (Spec. if 2) and the Appellant does not challenge the Examiner's
finding that "a gaming apparatus" can be considered a "specialized computer
system." (Answer 4.) In other words, the Appellant's field of endeavor
relates to data storage for a computer system and more particularly storing
system data on a data storage device. Shim likewise relates to a computer
system wherein information is stored in an information processing system of
the computer and, more particularly an information processing system
having at least one data storage unit. (See Shim iii! 7, 13.) As such, Shim
can be considered to be in the same field of endeavor as the Appellant's
claimed invention, and thus analogous art, even if Shim addresses a problem
different from that addressed by the Appellant. 4
4 See In re Bigio, 381F.3d1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (A reference is
analogous prior art if it "is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the
problem addressed").
5
Appeal2014-006674
Application 11/830,827
As the Appellant does not argue that the Examiner otherwise errs in
rejecting independent claims 1, 3, and 10 (see Appeal Br. 9-13), we sustain
the Examiner's rejections of independent Claims 1, 3, and 10. The
Appellant does not argue the dependent claims separately or further (see
id., 12, 13), so they fall with the independent claims.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, and
12-15.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6