Ex Parte Yarbrough et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 30, 2012

10797338 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 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.
10/797,338 03/10/2004 Jon P. Yarbrough 60,583-004 4307
27305 7590 03/30/2012
HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC
450 West Fourth Street
Royal Oak, MI 48067
EXAMINER
PANDYA, SUNIT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3718
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2012 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 JON P. YARBROUGH and DAVID L. WRIGHT
____________________

Appeal 2010-003191
Application 10/797,338
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and
EDWARD A. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003191
Application 10/797,338
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4-22,
25-32, 34-46, 49-51, 54, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Yoseloff (US 6,398,645 B1; iss. Jun. 4, 2002) and Falciglia (US
5,935,002; iss. Aug. 10, 1999). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to a method, apparatus, and
program product that use a mechanical technological aid to display a
representation of a result of the bingo-type game.” Spec. 1, para. [0002].
Claims 1, 22, 32, 46, 49, and 50 are independent. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of playing a bingo-type game, comprising:
generating an end game result of the bingo-type game
indicative of whether a player has won or lost the bingo-type
game; and
displaying an award representation of the end game result
directly displayed upon and represented by a mechanical
technological aid at an electronic play station;
wherein the mechanical technological aid is selected
from the group of one or more mechanical spinning reels
rotatable about at least one axle, one or more mechanical
spinning wheels rotatable about at least one axle, one or more
mechanical die rotatable about at least one axle, one or more
mechanical playing cards rotatable about at least one axle, and
combinations thereof.

Appeal 2010-003191
Application 10/797,338
3
ISSUE
The issue presented by this appeal is whether the proposed
combination of Yoseloff and Falciglia would have rendered the subject
matter of independent claims 1, 22, 32, 46, 49, and 50 obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art.

ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 22, 49, and 50 are method claims that each
comprise displaying a representation1 of an end game result of a bingo-type
game upon a mechanical technological aid. Similarly, independent claim 32
is an apparatus claim that calls for display of an award representation of a
result of a bingo-type game on a mechanical technological aid, and
independent claim 46 is directed to a program product comprised of a
display program code for displaying an award representation of an end game
result of a bingo-type game upon a mechanical technical aid. Each claim
calls for the mechanical technological aid to be selected from the group of
one or more mechanical spinning reels rotatable
about at least one axle, one or more mechanical
spinning wheels rotatable about at least one axle,
one or more mechanical die rotatable about at least
one axle, one or more mechanical playing cards
rotatable about at least one axle, and combinations
thereof.
The Specification, in parity with the claims, defines the result of the bingo
game as whether the player has won or lost the bingo game. Spec. para.
[0005]. Thus, each of the independent claims call for display of a

1 The representation may be an award representation (claims 1, 22) or a
won/loss representation (claims 49, 50).
Appeal 2010-003191
Application 10/797,338
4
representation of a game result of a bingo-type game on a mechanical
technological aid selected from the specified group.
The Examiner found that Yoseloff discloses a method of playing a
bingo-type game except displaying the game result upon a mechanical
technological aid, and found that Falciglia discloses a mechanical
technological aid for display of the game result that includes mechanical
reels rotatable around at least one axis. Ans. 3-4 (citing Falciglia, col. 3, ll.
28-31; col. 11, ll. 25-30). The Examiner concluded that it would have been
obvious to modify Yoseloff to include a mechanical technological aid for
display of the end game result, as taught by Falciglia. Ans. 4.
The Examiner’s finding identifies two elements of Falciglia as
corresponding to the claimed mechanical technological aid for display of the
end game result, one from the embodiment shown in Figure 1 (Falciglia, col.
3, ll. 28-31), and the other from the embodiment shown in Figure 8
(Falciglia, col. 11, ll. 25-30). See Ans. 4.
In the embodiment shown in Figure 1, Falciglia discloses a slot
machine design for playing the game of bingo having a display matrix 3 of
five rows by five columns that displays the randomly selected bingo
numbers. Col. 3, ll. 1-25; fig. 1. Below each column of the display matrix 3
is a corresponding slot machine wheel (wheels 1-5)2 having an associated
display window (display windows 7a-7e). Col. 3, ll. 26-30; fig. 1. Each slot
machine wheel includes a range of numbers corresponding to the range of
numbers for each column of the display matrix 3.3 Col. 3, ll. 49-51. The

2 Falciglia’s slot machine wheels are not depicted in Figure1. Col. 3, l. 29.
We refer to these slot machine wheels corresponding to the five columns of
display matrix 3 as “wheels 1-5.”
3 For example, slot machine wheel 1 could include numbers 1-15
corresponding to column 1 of the display matrix 3, wheel 2 could include
Appeal 2010-003191
Application 10/797,338
5
slot machine wheels function as the second random number generator,
generating numbers for comparison to the numbers in the corresponding
column of the display matrix, and matching numbers on the display matrix
are “covered.” Col. 2, ll. 13-27. The object of the game being to cover all
the numbers on the display matrix with a maximum of ten spins of the
wheels. Col. 4, ll. 39-41. In addition to the numbers, each of slot machine
wheels 1-5 may also include special positions, such as “Free Spin,” “Devil,”
or “Gold Star.” Col. 3, l. 63-col. 4, l. 28; fig. 1. Thus, slot machine wheels
1-5 can display (in display windows 7a-7e) a bingo number or a special
position; however, slot machine wheels 1-5 do not display a representation
of whether the player has won or lost the bingo-type game that is displayed
on the display matrix 3. Therefore, Falciglia’s slot machine wheels 1-5 do
not correspond to a mechanical technological aid as claimed because they do
not display a representation of a game result of a bingo-type game. Contra.
Ans. 4.
In the embodiment shown in Figure 8, Falciglia discloses that event
processor 196 generates a set of five random symbols which are displayed
“to simulate the spinning of multiple mechanical wheels generating random
symbols as in slot machines in the prior art.” Col. 11, ll. 21-30.
Consequently, Falciglia’s embodiment shown in Figure 8 does not include a
mechanical technological aid as claimed because the wheels are simulated,
and are not mechanical reels rotatable around at least one axis for display of
the game result as claimed. Contra. Ans. 4.
Neither portion of Falciglia identified by the Examiner corresponds to
a mechanical technological aid as claimed. Consequently, we agree with

numbers 16-30 corresponding to the second column of the display matrix 3,
and so forth. Col. 3, ll. 51-62; fig. 1.
Appeal 2010-003191
Application 10/797,338
6
Appellants that the combined teachings of the references would not have
rendered obvious the claimed invention. As such, we cannot sustain the
rejection of independent claims 1, 22, 32, 46, 49, and 50, and their respective
dependent claims 4-21, 25-31, 34-45, 51, 54, and 55.
CONCLUSION
The proposed combination of Yoseloff and Falciglia would not have
rendered the subject matter of independent claims 1, 22, 32, 46, 49, and 50
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4-22, 25-32,
34-46, 49-51, 54, and 55.

REVERSED

mls