BINH NGUYEN

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 19, 2022

2021004104 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2022)

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. 14/017,159 09/03/2013 BINH T. NGUYEN 902-P021B 6317 68803 7590 01/19/2022 TI Law Group, PC 1055 E Brokaw Road Suite 30-355 San Jose, CA 95131-2116 EXAMINER DOSHI, ANKIT B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/19/2022 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): TILGDocket@yahoo.com aspence@tipatents.com dthomas@tipatents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BINH T. NGUYEN Appeal 2021-004104 Application 14/017,159 Technology Center 3700 Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, BRANDON J. WARNER, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-22. See Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nguyen Gaming LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-004104 Application 14/017,159 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The application is titled “Method and System for Localized Mobile Gaming.” Spec. 1. Claims 1, 10, 21, and 22 are independent. See Appeal Br. A-1 to A-9 (“Claims App.”). We reproduce claim 1, below: 1. A method for facilitating intra-casino mobile gaming, the method comprising: forming a plurality of intra-casino mobile gaming zones internal to a casino establishment; pairing a player ID tag with a portable gaming device (PGD); determining whether one of the player ID tag or the PGD is within one of the plurality of intra-casino mobile gaming zones using a zone specific local positioning system, the zone specific local positioning system having a plurality of transceivers to form each of the plurality of intra-casino mobile gaming zone, wherein each of the plurality of transceivers are configured to periodically and actively detect the player ID tag or the PGD; and permitting the PGD to provide a wager gaming capability associated with each of the plurality of intra-casino mobile gaming zones while wirelessly interacting with a gaming server if the determining determines that at least one of the player ID tag or the PGD is detected by at least one of the plurality of transceivers and is within one of the plurality of intra-casino mobile gaming zones. Claims App. A-1. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Nguyen US 2008/0076572 A1 Mar. 27, 2008 Amaitis US 2008/0311994 A1 Dec. 18, 2008 Block US 2011/0183732 A1 July 28, 2011 Appeal 2021-004104 Application 14/017,159 3 REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us on appeal: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1-18, 20-22 103 Nguyen, Amaitis 19 103 Nguyen, Amaitis, Block See Final Act. 2-8. ANALYSIS I. Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 3-6 Appellant does not present separate arguments contesting the rejection of claims 3-6. See Appeal Br. 13-15. We treat claim 1 as the representative claim, with claims 3-6 standing or falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Nguyen discloses a method for facilitating intra-casino mobile gaming, comprising several of the claimed steps. See Final Act. 3-4 (citations omitted). We reproduce Figure 2A of Nguyen, below: Appeal 2021-004104 Application 14/017,159 4 Figure 2A “is an illustrative top-view diagram of a floor layout having five zones in accordance with one embodiment” of Nguyen’s invention. Nguyen ¶ 29. In particular, Figure 2A depicts five zones (zone A, zone B, zone C, zone D, and zone E) on floor of casino/hotel 102, with “[e]ach zone [being] associated with at least one level of mobile gaming device functionality.” See id. ¶¶ 49, 55. The Examiner finds that Nguyen discloses that its “zones underlying the areas are defined by and equipped with network components that facilitate communication between a mobile gaming network and a mobile device, further the network components and the components in the gaming Appeal 2021-004104 Application 14/017,159 5 device enable ‘automatic’ configuring of the device's functionality when the gaming device enters and exits various zones.” Final Act. 3 (citing Nguyen ¶ 56, Fig. 1). The Examiner further finds that in Zone A in Fig. 2A the gaming device has “full wager game play”, whereas in Zone B in Fig. 2B, the gaming device is disabled from wagering capabilities, therefore the gaming device is provided wager gaming capability based off the location of the gaming device within the casino and the gaming device location is determined by the network components within each zone. Id. (citing Nguyen ¶¶ 55, 56, Fig. 2A). The Examiner acknowledges, however, that Nguyen [] does not expressly disclose wherein each of the plurality of transceivers are configured to periodically and actively detect the player ID tag or the PGD and subsequently re- determin[e] whether the PGD or the player ID tag is within one of the plurality of intra-casino mobile gaming zone using the zone specific local positioning system. Final Act. 4. To address the recited “transceivers [] configured to periodically and actively detect,” the Examiner relies on Amaitis for teaching a plurality of signal detection devices, including wireless access points, wireless routers, wireless base stations, and satellites. Id. (citations omitted). We reproduce Amaitis’s Figure 6, below: Appeal 2021-004104 Application 14/017,159 6 Figure 6 “illustrates a wireless gaming system having location determination in accordance with an embodiment of” Amaitis’s invention. Amaitis ¶ 13. In particular, Figure 6 depicts gaming communication device 604 in a casino complex divided into a plurality of zones 608 and sub-zones 606. Id. ¶¶ 51, 53. The casino complex has signal detection devices 602 that are “used to transmit, as well as receive, signal to gaming communication device 604.” Id. ¶ 51. In combining Nguyen’s teachings with Amaitis’s teachings, the Examiner reasons that a skilled artisan would have modified the transmitters within the casino floor of Nguyen [] with transceivers that periodically detect the gaming communication device via the detection device in view of Amaitis [] as it would accurately detect and determine the presence of the player gaming device is within the casino gaming zones. Appeal 2021-004104 Application 14/017,159 7 Final Act. 5. In contesting the rejection, Appellant presents its arguments under two subheadings. See Appeal Br. 7-12. We address those arguments as presented by Appellant. First, Appellant argues that “there is no reasonable rationale why anyone skilled in the art would reasonably seek to combine Nguyen and Amaitis.” Id. at 10. In support of this argument, Appellant asserts that Nguyen teaches beacons that send out “heartbeats” to be received by the mobile device, but Amaitis teaches the gaming communication device sends out signals to be received by a signal detection device. Thus, there is no rational reason for the alleged combination as both Nguyen and Amaitis teach opposing methods. Id. Appellant submits that, due to the differences between Nguyen and Amaitis, [T]he alleged combination of prior art references does not teach or suggest “determining whether one of the player ID tag or the PGD is within one of the plurality of intra-casino mobile gaming zones using a zone specific local positioning system, the zone specific local positioning system having a plurality of transceivers to form each of the plurality of intra-casino mobile gaming zone, wherein each of the plurality of transceivers are configured to periodically and actively detect the player ID tag or the PGD” as recited in claim 1. Id. Appellant’s first argument is not persuasive. Appellant fails to identify error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning. Rather, Appellant attacks Nguyen and Amaitis individually, rather than addressing the combined teachings as articulated by the Examiner. Nguyen and Amaitis must be read, not in isolation, but for what each fairly teaches in Appeal 2021-004104 Application 14/017,159 8 combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In particular, Appellant does not persuasively identify error in the Examiner’s findings regarding Nguyen’s method for facilitating intra-casino mobile gaming or Amaitis’s teaching of signal detection devices. Rather, Appellant identifies extraneous details of Nguyen’s and Amaitis’s systems in arguing that a skilled artisan would not have combined the references as the Examiner has done. See Appeal Br. 8-10. For example, even if Nguyen teaches “beacons that send out ‘heartbeats’ to be received by the mobile device” and “Amaitis teaches the gaming communication device [that] sends out signals to be received by a signal detection device,” as Appellant asserts (Appeal Br. 10), these are distinctions without a difference. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Nguyen teaches gaming zones, wherein said zones are defined by and equipped with network components that facilitate communication between a mobile gaming network and a mobile device, and that the network components and the components in the gaming device enable automatic configuring of the device’s functionality when the gaming device enters and exits various zones. See Nguyen ¶¶ 49, 56, Fig. 1; see also Ans. 9 (finding the same). We also agree with the Examiner that a skilled artisan would have modified Nguyen’s transmitters to be transceivers that periodically detect the gaming communication devices in view of Amaitis’s teachings. See Final Act. 5. We further agree with the Examiner that doing so would “accurately detect and determine the presence of the player gaming device is within the casino gaming zones.” Id. Appeal 2021-004104 Application 14/017,159 9 Second, Appellant argues that “Nguyen fails to teach or suggest active transceivers” and that Nguyen instead “teaches the use of NFM [or “near- field magnetic”] signals emitted from an antenna or transmitter.” Appeal Br. 11. Due to this perceived shortcoming, Appellant argues that [T]he alleged combination of Nguyen and Amaitis do not teach or suggest “permitting the PGD to provide a wager gaming capability associated with each of the plurality of intra-casino mobile gaming zones while wirelessly interacting with a gaming server if the determining determines that at least one of the player ID tag or the PGD is detected by at least one of the plurality of transceivers and is within one of the plurality of intra-casino mobile gaming zones” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 11-12. As with Appellant’s first argument, Appellant’s second argument does not persuade us of Examiner error. Even if Nguyen “teaches the use of NFM signals emitted from an antenna or transmitter” (Appeal Br. 11), as Appellant contends, this fact has no bearing on the Examiner’s proposed combination. Again, Nguyen and Amaitis must be read, not in isolation, but for what each fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. Based on the teachings of Nguyen and Amaitis, we agree with the Examiner that the proposed combination would yield a “transceiver in the gaming zone to accurately detect and determine the presence of the player gaming device is within the casino gaming zones” and satisfy the limitations recite in claim 1. See Ans. 11. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 3-6, which fall therewith. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2021-004104 Application 14/017,159 10 II. Dependent Claim 2 Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites the steps of detecting the presence of the player ID tag within one of the plurality of intra-casino mobile gaming zones if the determining determines that the PGD is already within the intra- casino mobile gaming zone; and detecting the presence of the PGD within one of the plurality of intra-casino mobile gaming zones if the determining determines that the player ID tag is already within the intra- casino mobile gaming zones. Claims App. A1-A2. In rejecting claim 2, the Examiner finds that Nguyen [] discloses detecting the presence of the player ID tag within one of the plurality of intra-casino mobile gaming zone if the determining determines that the PGD is already within the intra-casino mobile gaming zone; and detecting the presence of the PGD within one of the plurality intra-casino mobile gaming zone if the determining determines that the player ID tag is already within the intra-casino mobile gaming zone. Final Act. 5 (citing Nguyen ¶¶ 75-80, Fig. 5B). In contesting the rejection, Appellant argues that “Nguyen simply teaches the use of NFM signals emitted from an antenna or transmitter” and does not teach or suggest “detecting the presence of the player ID tag within one of the plurality of intra-casino mobile gaming zones” much less “detecting the presence of the PGD within one of the plurality of intra-casino mobile gaming zones if the determining determines that the player ID tag is already within the intra-casino mobile gaming zones” as recited in [the claims]. Appeal Br. 13. Appeal 2021-004104 Application 14/017,159 11 Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of Examiner error. As with Appellant’s argument in connection with claim 1, even if “Nguyen simply teaches the use of NFM signals emitted from an antenna or transmitter,” as Appellant argues (id.), we do not find this relevant to the Examiner’s rejection. Here, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that “Nguyen [] teaches the player receives the mobile gaming device at the registration desk of the casino. Once the player receives the mobile gaming device, that device is tagged as the player’s device.” Ans. 11 (citing Nguyen ¶¶ 73-74, Fig. 5A). We find this teaching satisfies the additional limitations recited in claim 2. Furthermore, and even if Nguyen does not use the exact terms “detecting the presence of the PGD . . . ,” as we understand Appellant to argue (see Appeal Br. 13), the law does not require that the prior art describe a claim limitation in ipsis verbis in order to satisfy it. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 2. III. Dependent Claim 7 Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further recites, “receiving the player ID tag information associated with the PGD” and “determining whether the PGD is permitted to play the games of chance based on the player ID tag information.” Claims App. A-2. The Examiner finds that Nguyen discloses the “permitting” step to include receiving the player ID tag information associated with the PGD; and determining whether the PGD is permitted to play the games of chance based on the player ID tag information. (RFID tracking card on the player mobile device is considered as the player ID information.[)] Appeal 2021-004104 Application 14/017,159 12 Final Act. 6 (citing Nguyen ¶¶ 18, 98). In contesting the rejection, Appellant argues that The Final Office Action does not cite with specificity and Nguyen is silent as to and does not teach or suggest “receiving the player ID tag information associated with the PGD” much less “determining whether the PGD is permitted to play the games of chance based on the player ID tag information” as recited in claim 7. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. As explained above, the law does not require that the prior art describe a claim limitation in ipsis verbis in order to satisfy it. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Nguyen teaches using an identification from the player’s mobile device-via the RFID player tracking card-and therefore receives the player ID tag information associated with the portable gaming device, or PGD. See Ans. 12 (citing Nguyen ¶ 14). Appellant’s argument does not identify error in the Examiner’s finding. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 7. IV. Dependent Claim 8 Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further requires the step of “subsequently re-determining whether the PGD or the player ID tag is within one of the plurality of intra-casino mobile gaming zones using the zone specific local positioning system.” Claims App. A-3. The Examiner finds that Nguyen “discloses subsequently re- determining whether the PGD or the player ID tag is within one of the plurality of intra-casino mobile gaming zone using the zone specific local positioning system,” citing Nguyen’s disclosure of periodically “pinging” Appeal 2021-004104 Application 14/017,159 13 the player. See Appeal Br. 6 (citing Nguyen ¶ 98). The Examiner further cites to the combination of Nguyen and Amaitis for satisfying the claimed limitation. See Ans. 13-14 (citations omitted). Appellant again points out that “the transmitters or antennas of Nguyen send out heartbeats to the mobile gaming device” and that Nguyen does not teach or suggest “subsequently redetermining whether the PGD or the player ID tag is within one of the plurality of intra-casino mobile gaming zones using the zone specific local positioning system” of claim 8 because the transmitter system of Nguyen cannot be equated to the “zone specific local positioning system” of claim 8. Appeal Br. 17. The Examiner has the stronger position. As explained above, even if Nguyen teaches the use of sending “heartbeats to the mobile gaming device” (id.), Appellant’s argument does not identify error in the Examiner’s reliance on Nguyen, as modified by Amaitis’s teachings, for satisfying the claimed limitation. See Ans. 13-14; see also Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. In other words, Appellant points out extraneous details of Nguyen’s system, and we agree with the Examiner’s determination that “it would have been obvious to utilize the transceiver technology of Amaitis to detect the gaming device instead of the transmitter of Nguyen as it would accurately detect and determine the presence of the player gaming device is within the casino gaming zones.” Ans. 13-14. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 8. V. Dependent Claim 9 Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and further recites, “wherein the zone specific local positioning system includes at least one registration site at Appeal 2021-004104 Application 14/017,159 14 each of the plurality of intra-casino mobile gaming zones to allow the PGD or the player ID tag to establish its presence within one of the plurality of intra-casino mobile gaming zones.” Claims App. A-3. The Examiner finds that Nguyen “discloses the zone specific local positioning system includes at least one registration site at each of the plurality of intra-casino mobile gaming zone to allow the PGD or the player ID tag to establish its presence within one of the plurality intra-casino mobile gaming zone.” Final Act. 6 (citing Nguyen ¶ 11). Appellant contends that “Nguyen teaches that the players check out and register their mobile devices at the same time. In other words, registration occurs when the mobile device is physically checked out at the gaming establishment.” Appeal Br. 18. Appellant explains that the combination of Nguyen and Amaitis do not teach or suggest the limitations recited in claim 9. See id. at 19. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Appellant’s argument presumes that claim 9 requires more than that recited, but fails to point out where the Examiner erred. We agree with the Examiner that Nguyen teaches a mobile gaming device that is registered to an authorized user whose identity is verified at time of check out, and that gaming regulations require that only one user use the device. See Ans. 14 (citing Nguyen ¶ 14). Based on this teaching, we find that Nguyen satisfies the limitations of claim 9. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 9. VI. Independent Claim 10 and Dependent Claims 15 and 20 Independent claim 10 is similar to independent claim 1 and the Examiner relies on the same findings in rejecting claim 10. See Final Act. 7 Appeal 2021-004104 Application 14/017,159 15 (“As per claims 10 - 12 and 14, the instant claims are a method in which corresponds to the method of claims 1 - 9. Therefore, it is rejected for the reasons set forth above.”). In contesting the rejection of claim 10, Appellant rehashes the same unpersuasive arguments discussed above in connection with claims 1, 2, and 7-9. See Appeal Br. 20 (“Nguyen teaches ‘the mobile gaming device is capable of receiving NFM signals emitted from an antenna or transmitter” and “a transmitter cannot be equated to a transceiver”); see also id. at 22 (“in Nguyen, the mobile device determines whether there is a heartbeat received from the transmitter to determine whether it can play the wager game”); see also id. at 22-23 (“Nguyen teaches beacons that send out ‘heartbeats’ to be received by the mobile device, but Amaitis teaches the gaming communication device sends out signals to be received by a signal detection device.”); see also id. at 23 (“Nguyen and Amaitis are silent as to and does not teach . . . ‘associating the presence of the player ID tag . . . .’ as recited in claim 10”); see also id. at 25 (“Nguyen and Amaitis do not teach or suggest ‘permitting the PGD to provide a wager gaming capability . . . .”). For reasons similar to those discussed above, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. Appellant attacks Nguyen and Amaitis individually, without appreciating that the Examiner relies on a combination of the two references in rendering obvious the claim. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. For instance, Appellant’s criticism of Nguyen’s teaching of “a heartbeat received from the transmitter to determine whether it can play a wager game” (Appeal Br. 22) does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. We do not see why this teaching would dissuade a skilled artisan from modifying Nguyen’s method so as to “utilize the Appeal 2021-004104 Application 14/017,159 16 transceiver technology of Amaitis to detect the gaming device instead of the transmitter of Nguyen as it would accurately detect and determine the presence of the player gaming device is within the casino gaming zones,” as the Examiner explains. Ans. 15. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 10. Furthermore, Appellant does not present additional arguments contesting the rejection of claims 15 and 20, and simply relies on those same unpersuasive arguments presented with respect to claim 10. See Appeal Br. 28 (“Claim 15 depends upon independent claim 10 and thus, the arguments set forth above are equally applicable here”); see id. at 34 (“Claim 20 depends upon independent claim 10 and thus, the arguments set forth above are equally applicable here.”). Accordingly, we also affirm the rejection of claims 15 and 20. VII. Dependent Claim 11 Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and is similar to dependent claim 2. Compare Claims App. A-1, with id. at A-5. The Examiner relies on similar findings and reasoning in rejecting claim 11 (see Final Act. 5) and Appellant presents the same or similar arguments in contesting the rejection of this claim (compare Appeal Br. 12-13, with id. at 25-27). For the same reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 11. VIII. Dependent Claims 12 and 13 Claim 12 depends from claim 10 and is similar to dependent claim 9. Compare Claims App. A-3, with id. at A-5. Appeal 2021-004104 Application 14/017,159 17 The Examiner relies on similar findings and reasoning in rejecting claim 12 (see Final Act. 5) and Appellant presents the same or similar arguments in contesting the rejection of this claim (compare Appeal Br. 18-19, with id. at 27-28). For the same reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 12. Furthermore, Appellant does not present additional arguments contesting the rejection of claim 13, and simply relies on those arguments presented with respect to claim 12. See Appeal Br. 28 (“Claim 13 depends upon dependent claim 12, which depends upon independent claim 10 and thus, the arguments set forth above are equally applicable here.”). Accordingly, we also affirm the rejection of claim 13. IX. Dependent Claims 14, 16, and 17 Claims 14 and 16 each depends from claim 10 and are similar to dependent claim 8. Compare Claims App. A-3, with id. at A-6. The Examiner relies on similar findings and reasoning in rejecting claims 14 and 16. See Final Act. 5. Although claim 14 recites, “periodically re-determining whether the PGD or the player ID tag is within the intra-casino gaming zone . . . ,” while claim 8 recites, “subsequently re-determining whether the PGD or the player ID tag is within one of the plurality of intra-casino mobile gaming zones,” Appellant’s arguments to claim 14 are essentially identical to those unpersuasive arguments presented for claim 8. Compare Appeal Br. 16-17, with id. at 29-30. Furthermore, Appellant’s arguments to claim 16 are similar to those unpersuasive arguments presented for claims 8 and 14. See id. at 30-31. Appeal 2021-004104 Application 14/017,159 18 As to claim 17, Appellant does not present separate arguments for this claim, but relies on the arguments presented for claim 16. See id. at 31 (“Claim 17 depends upon dependent claim 16, which depends upon dependent claim 15, which depends on independent claim 10 and thus, the arguments set forth above are equally applicable here.”). For the same reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 14, 16, and 17. X. Dependent Claim 18 Claim 18 depends from claim 15 and further recites, wherein the determining whether the PGD or the player ID tag is within the intra-casino mobile gaming zone uses a physical contact or proximity to a registration site included in the zone specific local positioning system; and wherein the re-determining determines whether the PGD or the player ID tag is within the intra-casino mobile gaming zone using wireless signal strength of the PGD to a zone wireless network included in the zone specific local positioning system. Appeal Br. A-6-A-7. The Examiner finds that “Nguyen [] teaches the mobile gaming device is preferably registered to an authorized user whose identity is verified at time of check out and registration by the gaming operator” and that “[m]obile gaming regulations will require that only the authorized user use the device.” Ans. 20-21 (citing Nguyen ¶¶ 14, 75). Appellant argues that the Specification describes that the “registration of the player,” authenticating the MGD and its software, and “the verifications of ID’s and location” Appeal 2021-004104 Application 14/017,159 19 are performed automatically when the player enters the mobile gaming zone. From the player’s perspective, she walks into the gaming zone, and she can start playing. The complexity of the gaming registration and verification are completely hidden from the player as they are performed in the background. Reply Br.14 (citing Spec. ¶ 76). Based on the description from the Specification, Appellant argues that Nguyen does not teach the claimed limitation. See id. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Appellant attempts to interpret claim 18 by reading into that claim features from a particular embodiment described in the Specification. See id. This is improper. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, we agree with the Examiner that Nguyen’s teaching of registering its mobile gaming device to an authorized user whose identity is verified at time of check out satisfies the limitations of claim 18. See Ans. 20-21 (citing Nguyen ¶¶ 14, 75). Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 18. XI. Independent Claims 21 and 22 Independent claims 21 and 22 recite a “program storage device” and the Examiner rejects these claims based on the same findings and reasoning relied upon in rejecting claims 1-9. See Final Act. 7; see also Claims App. A-7-A-8. Despite being directed to “program storage devices,” claims 21 and 22 require the devices to perform method steps that are similarly recited in claims 1-9. Compare Claims App. A-1-A-3, with id. at A-7-A-8. In contesting the rejection of claims 21 and 22, Appellant presents similar arguments discussed above in connection with claims 1-9. See Appeal 2021-004104 Application 14/017,159 20 Appeal Br. 35-44. In particular, Appellant argues that the combination of Nguyen and Amaitis does not teach the following steps: (1) “determining whether a portable gaming device (PGD) is within the intra-casino mobile gaming zone using a zone specific local positioning system, the zone specific local positioning system having a plurality of transceivers to form the intra-casino mobile gaming zone, wherein each of the plurality of transceivers are configured to periodically and actively detect the player ID tag or the PGD” (claim 21); (2) “permitting the PGD to provide a wager gaming capability associated with the intra-casino mobile gaming zone if the determining determines that the PGD is detected by at least one of the plurality of transceivers and is within the intra- casino mobile gaming zone” or “denying the PGD from providing the wager gaming capability associated with the intra-casino mobile gaming zone if the determining determines that the PGD is not within the intra-casino mobile gaming zone” (claim 21); (3) “determining whether one of the player identifier or the PGD is within the intra-casino mobile gaming zone using a zone specific local positioning system, the zone specific local positioning system having a plurality of transceivers to form the intra-casino mobile gaming zone, wherein each of the plurality of transceivers are configured to periodically and actively detect the player ID tag or the PGD” (claim 22); (4) “associating the presence of the PGD with the intra-casino mobile gaming zone if it is determined that the PGD is within the intra-casino mobile gaming zone” (claim 22); and (5) “detecting the presence of the other paired device within the intra-casino mobile gaming zone if the determining determines that one of the paired device is already within the intra-casino mobile gaming zone” (claim 22). See Appeal Br. 35-44. Appeal 2021-004104 Application 14/017,159 21 Appellant’s arguments are similar to those arguments discussed above in connection with claims 1-9. For the same reasons discussed above, Appellants arguments do not identify error in the Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 21 and 22. XII. Dependent Claim 19 Claim 19 depends from claim 10 and further recites, “wherein the intra-casino mobile gaming zone includes at least one camera for security and audit.” Claims App. A-7. To address this claim, the Examiner finds that Block “teaches generating a casino floor map, wherein the video cameras are placed throughout the casino floor to help identify people and activities within the casino floors.” Final Act. 8 (citing Block ¶¶ 54-55, Fig. 1). In combining Block with Nguyen and Amaitis, the Examiner reasons that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have implemented security cameras within the casino gaming zones in view of Block [] as it would allow the casino to accurately determine is the player is the gaming zone or non-gaming zone of the casino.” Id. In contesting the rejection of claim 19, Appellant argues that “Block does not teach, suggest, or discuss placement of cameras of the casino monitoring system other than it ‘can control all monitoring activities and present perceptible ‘captured data’ (e.g., captured images, captured sounds, etc.) of the casino floor objects on various devices for review.” Appeal Br. 46 (citing Block ¶ 55). Appellant contends that “there is no reasonable rationale why anyone skilled in the art would reasonably seek to combine Nguyen and Block.” Id. Appeal 2021-004104 Application 14/017,159 22 Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, Block discloses “video cameras 191 to capture images and movements” (Block ¶ 54) and a “monitoring processor . . . configured to present . . . a need for security assistance (id. ¶ 24). Based on at least these teachings, we agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that a skilled artisan would “have implemented security cameras within the casino gaming zones in view of Block [] as it would allow the casino to accurately determine is the player is the gaming zone or non-gaming zone of the casino.” Final Act. 8. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19. XIII. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-18 and 20-22 as unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Amaitis. We further affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 as unpatentable over Nguyen, Amaitis, and Block. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-18, 20-22 103 Nguyen, Amaitis 1-18, 20-22 19 103 Nguyen, Amaitis, Block 19 Overall Outcome 1-22 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE Appeal 2021-004104 Application 14/017,159 23 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED