11479991 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2014)

Ex Parte Soltys

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 20, 2014

11479991 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte RICHARD SOLTYS ____________________ Appeal 2012-004908 Application 11/479,991 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Richard Soltys (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–60. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2012-004908 Application 11/479,991 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Independent claims 1, 13, 17, 21, 29, 32, 44, and 51 are pending. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter. 1. A method of operating a card handling system having a playing card input receiver, a playing card output receiver, a first and at least a second intermediary playing card receiver positioned relative between the playing card input and playing card output receivers along at least one playing card transport path, the first and the second intermediary playing card receivers each having a plurality of playing card receiving compartments, the method comprising: transporting a number of playing cards from the playing card input receiver to the plurality of playing card receiving compartments of at least one of the first or the second intermediary playing card receivers; for each of at least some of a number of participants, retrieving at least two playing cards from respective ones of the plurality of playing card receiving compartments of at least one of the first or the second intermediary playing card receivers based on a number of pseudo-randomly generated virtual playing card values; and for each of the at least some of the number of participants, forming a distinct set of playing cards from the at least two retrieved playing cards for delivery to the respective participant as a packet of playing cards. EVIDENCE The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Pfeiffer et al. US 4,667,959 May 26, 1987 Lamle US 5,199,710 Apr. 6, 1993 Soltys et al. US 2002/0187821 A1 Dec. 12, 2002 Steil et al. US 2005/0054408 A1 Mar. 10, 2005 Appeal 2012-004908 Application 11/479,991 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1–11, 13–15, 17–19, 21–25, 27, 29–33, 35–39, 41–49, and 51– 59 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pfeiffer. Ans. 5. Claims 10, 15, 19, 31, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pfeiffer and Official Notice. Ans. 13. Claims 12, 16, 20, 26, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pfeiffer and Soltys. Ans. 14. Claims 28, 50, and 60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pfeiffer and Steil. Ans. 14. Claims 32, 33, 35, 36, 40, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lamle and Pfeiffer. Ans. 15. OPINION Each of pending independent claims 1, 13, 17, 21, 29, 32, 44, and 51, whether reciting a method or apparatus, recites first and second intermediary playing card receivers and a playing card output receiver. Independent claims 1, 13, 17, 21, 29, and 44 additionally recite a playing card input receiver. The Examiner finds that Pfeiffer teaches, among other things, a playing card input receiver (hopper 22, discussed at col. 4, l. 5 – col. 5, l. 8), a playing card output receiver (hinged output doors 20, discussed at col. 4, ll. 23–33), a first intermediary playing card receiver (carousel 48, discussed at col. 4, ll. 59–66; col. 5, ll. 9–20), and a second intermediary playing card receiver (output ports 30, discussed at col. 4, ll. 59–66; col. 5, ll. 9–20). Ans. 5‒6. Appeal 2012-004908 Application 11/479,991 4 Appellant argues that “Pfeiffer fails to teach or suggest both a second intermediary playing card receiver and a playing card output receiver, as recited.” Appeal Br. 31. Appellant explains that “the present application interchangeably uses the terms ‘receiver’ and ‘receptacle,’ which is consistent with dictionary definitions of a structure to hold a playing card,” and that Pfeiffer’s output door 20 cannot be a “receiver” given any reasonable interpretation of that term, and is not a receptacle to hold a playing card. Id. at 32–33. The Examiner responds that “one of ordinary skill in the art and the plain meaning of the word ‘receiver’ support that a playing card output receiver is understood to include a component making a playing card accessible,” and Pfeiffer’s output door allows a player to access and receive a playing card. Ans. 18. According to the Examiner, without Pfeiffer’s “output door functioning as a receiver, players could not access and receive their cards as contemplated by Pfeiffer.” Id. at 19. Appellant replies that while a receiver may include a door, a door itself cannot constitute a receiver. Reply Br. 7. Pfeiffer’s device includes, among other things, a hopper 22, a frame 12 with openings 64 and 66 and output ports 30 that interact with output doors 20 to receive and store cards such that players can retrieve cards from the outlets ports 30. See Pfeiffer, Fig. 2; col. 4, l. 59 – col. 5, l. 20. A carousel 48 is located within a central opening of the frame 12. Cards placed in hopper 22 are injected through frame opening 64 to carousel 48, and then are ejected from carousel 48 through frame opening 66 into output port 30 and stopped by output door 20. Id. Appeal 2012-004908 Application 11/479,991 5 Pfeiffer’s output port 30 and output door 20 combine to create a single playing card receiver, not both an output receiver and a second intermediary playing card receiver. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in finding that Pfeiffer’s door 20 can itself be a receiver. We therefore do not sustain pending rejections, which are all premised on the erroneous finding that Pfeiffer teaches both a second intermediary playing card receiver and a playing car output receiver. DECISION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1–11, 13–15, 17–19, 21–25, 27, 29–33, 35–39, 41–49, and 51–59 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pfeiffer. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 10, 15, 19, 31, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as anticipated by Pfeiffer and Official Notice. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 12, 16, 20, 26, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pfeiffer and Soltys. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 28, 50, and 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pfeiffer and Steil. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 32, 33, 35, 36, 40, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lamle and Pfeiffer. REVERSED Ssc