Ex Parte Yoseloff

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2016

13050203 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2016)

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.
13/050,203 03/17/2011 Mark L. Yoseloff 1234.002US1 2205
97462 7590 08/10/2016
Mark A. Litman & Associates, P.A.
7001 Cahill Road, Ste. 15A
Edina, MN 55439
EXAMINER
GARNER, WERNER G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3714
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2016 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 MARK L. YOSELOFF
___________

Appeal 2014-0001821
Application 13/050,2032
Technology Center 3700
___________

Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, KEVIN W. CHERRY, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Mark L. Yoseloff (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a
final rejection of claims 1–23, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Our decision references the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.”), filed
May 21, 2013, and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), mailed July 10, 2013.
2 Appellant’s brief identifies Mr. Mark L. Yoseloff, as the real party in
interest for this appeal (Br. 3).
Appeal 2014-000182
Application 13/050,203
2

Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “an improved methodology
[and] system for tracking and marketing to select players” (Spec. 1, ll.
9–13).
Claim 1, one of four independent claims, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal and is reproduced below (with paragraphing added).
1. A method of providing incentives to casino players based on
play of the casino players at games in which quality of strategy
of play in electronic card games requiring player game play
choices can be determined comprising:
a) identifying at least one specific player on a processor;
b) capturing game play information on player choices of play of
the electronic card game of that at least one player on the
processor;
c) on hands where there are alternative strategies that can be
played on specific initial hands of playing cards provided to the
player by the processor which are displayed on a video display,
the processor identifying what strategy is executed by the at least
one player;
d) the processor determining a performance rate or valuation
amount of the at least one player for the casino based upon
specific strategy executed by the at least one player on the
specific hands of playing cards;
e) collecting performance rates or valuation amounts over an at
least statistically significant minimum number of played hands
of playing cards for the at least one player to determine at least
one player valuator; and
f) subsequent to the determination of the at least one player
valuator, the processor providing the at least one player comps
of value, the value of the comps determined by the processor
based on the at least one player valuator for the at least one
player;
wherein the processor is configured to perform the determination
of the at least one player valuator at least in part by
Appeal 2014-000182
Application 13/050,203
3

i) defining a set of initial playing card hands that have
strategic choices in common;
ii) identifying when an initial hand of playing cards falls
within the defined set;
iii) identifying a strategy executed by the player by input to
the processor on a predetermined minimum number of
plays of hands falling within the defined set; and
the processor giving a statistical weight to the predetermined
minimum number of hands that assumes that more hands than
actually played in the predetermined minimum number have
been played by the executed strategy on those predetermined
minimum number of hands.
(Br. 30–31, Claims App.).
Rejections
Claims 1–5, 7, 9, 15–19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Shackleford (US 2004/0254005 A1, pub.
Dec. 16, 2004).
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shackleford and Bragonier (Daniel Bragonier, Statistical
Analysis of Texas Holdem Poker (June 28, 2010) (unpublished B.S. thesis,
Cal. Polytechnic State Univ., San Luis Obispo, CA (available at
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/statsp/7).
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shackleford, Bragonier, and Sammon (US 2008/0026816
A1, pub. Jan. 31, 2008).
Claims 10, 12, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shackleford and Graham (US 2010/0029373 A1,
pub. Feb. 4, 2010).
Appeal 2014-000182
Application 13/050,203
4

Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shackleford, Bragonier, and Graham.
Claims 13 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sammon and Shackleford.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sammon, Shackleford, and Bragonier.

ANALYSIS
Anticipation by Shackleford
Appellant argues claims 1–5, 7, 9, 15–19, 21, and 22 as a group.
Br. 14–25. We select claim 1 as representative and claims 2–5, 7, 9, 15–19,
21, and 22 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Shackleford fails
to disclose:
c) on hands where there are alternative strategies that can be
played on specific initial hands of playing cards provided to the
player by the processor which are displayed on a video display,
the processor identifying what strategy is executed by the at least
one player; [and]
d) the processor determining a performance rate or valuation
amount of the at least one player for the casino based upon
specific strategy executed by the at least one player on the
specific hands of playing cards[,]
as recited in claim 1 (Br. 14–25). Instead, we agree with, and adopt,
the Examiner’s findings and rationales as set forth on pages 3–10 of
the Answer as our own. In particular, we agree with the Examiner
that the broadest reasonable interpretation for “strategy” is “a method
to achieve goals and objectives” and the broadest reasonable
interpretation for “identifying” is “to recognize or establish as being a
Appeal 2014-000182
Application 13/050,203
5

particular person or thing” (Ans. 5–6). Based on these interpretations,
we agree with the Examiner that Shackleford’s disclosure of tracking
the magnitude of the player’s error by measuring the deviation of a
player’s game play from the mathematically optimal game play
describes “identifying” the player’s strategy, as recited in claim 1
(Ans. 5–6 (citing Shackleford ¶¶ 5, 27, 28, 75)). These findings are
consistent with Appellant’s admission in the Specification that
Shackleford’s method “appears to emphasize a real-time analysis, and
even hand-to-hand analysis of strategy” (Spec. 2, ll. 6–16), which
acknowledges that Shackleford is analyzing the player’s strategy to
determine the player’s expected value.
As for Appellant’s remaining arguments (Br. 20–25), we do not
find them persuasive, and instead agree with, and adopt, the
Examiner’s response to those arguments presented on pages 10–12 of
the Answer. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5,
7, 9, 15–19, 21, and 22.
Remaining Rejections
Appellant raises no separate arguments besides those considered
above regarding the remaining rejections of claims 6, 8, 10–14, 20, and 23
(Br. 25–28). Thus, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 6, 8, 10–14, 20, and 23.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–23 is affirmed.
Appeal 2014-000182
Application 13/050,203
6

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED