Ex Parte Berman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2016

12907555 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/907,555 10/19/2010
111805 7590
King Show Games, INC.
10275 Wayzata Blvd.
Suite 300
Minnetonka, MN 55305
03/17/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bradley Berman
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.
KSG.086.PATl 2217
EXAMINER
LIM, SENG HENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/17/2016 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):
ip@ksg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRADLEY BERMAN and
CHAD SHAPIRO
Appeal2014-002354
Application 12/907,555
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 3. Claims 21-23 have been withdrawn.
App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter "relates in general to card games, and
more particularly to facilitating enhanced hand results in poker games."
Spec. ,-i 1. Claims 1 and 12 are independent; claim 1 is illustrative of the
claims on appeal and is reproduced below:
Appeal2014-002354
Application 12/907,555
1. A method of operating a gaming apparatus having
display, user interface, and processor, the method comprising:
presenting a hand of a plurality of cards on the display,
wherein each of the cards has a card value and a card suit;
facilitating substantially simultaneously user
identification of the card values and user identification of the
card suits for each card of the presented hand in which to hold
via the user interface;
replacing the card values for any of the card values not
held, and replacing the card suits for any of the card suits not
held in the presented hand via the processor after the facilitation
of holding the card values and card suits; and
presenting via the display a resulting hand of the cards
that includes the held and replaced card values and card suits.
REFERENCE RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Strom US 2006/0194629 A 1 Aug. 31, 2006
THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Strom.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claims 1-20 together. 1 App. Br. 6-11. We select
claim 1 for review with claims 2-20 standing or falling with claim 1. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
1 Regarding dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20, Appellants state that
"[a ]dditional arguments for these claims are not presented" because they are
believed allowable "based at least on their dependency to claims 1 or 12."
App. Br. 7. Regarding independent claim 12, Appellants state that "[c]laim
12 includes similar limitations to claim l" and that claim 12 is allowable
"based at least on the reasons stated above with respect to claim 1." App.
Br. 11.
2
Appeal2014-002354
Application 12/907,555
Appellants initially address the limitation of "facilitating substantially
simultaneously user identification of the card values and user identification
of the card suits for each card of the presented hand in which to hold via the
user interface." App. Br. 7. The Examiner finds this teaching disclosed in
paragraphs 65-74 of Strom, and also references Strom Figures 2A-2E.
Final Act. 3. Appellants disagree stating that, in Strom, "there is no express
or inherent teaching of a game process that substantially simultaneously
facilitates holding of card values and card suits." App. Br. 7 (emphasis
added).
The Examiner notes Appellants' focus on "holding" and states that
"claim 1 does not recite holding or user identification of a card, but rather
user identification of the card values and user identification of the suits for
each card." Ans. 3. Hence, the issue is not the "holding" of card values and
suits as Appellants assert, but instead the "user identification" of card values
and suits as claimed. 2
Strom provides several illustrations where the cards of a presented
hand are displayed. See, e.g., Strom Figs. 2A-2E, and 7. Appellants do not
explain how the card values and suits on display to the user in Strom fail to
facilitate, substantially simultaneously, user identification thereof.
Furthermore, in one game variant (Strom iJ 53), Strom discloses "a generic
play of the game ["Suit and Rank Format"] in which specific rules define the
provision and replacement of both symbols and ranks together." See also
Final Act. 3 ("a hand is presented to the player which can comprise both a
2 Furthermore, the Examiner also responds to Appellants' "holding"
argument stating "[t]he [E]xaminer takes the position that when the player in
Strom chooses to hold an entire card (i.e., both rank and suit), both the card
value and card suit is substantially simultaneously held." Ans. 3.
3
Appeal2014-002354
Application 12/907,555
suit and rank"). Accordingly, Appellants' contention is not persuasive of
Examiner error.
Additionally, Appellants acknowledge that "Strom teaches variations
where an entire card (i.e., both rank and suit) can be held or discarded,
where only the rank can be discarded, or where only the suit can be
discarded." App. Br. 10. Despite this acknowledgement, Appellants
nevertheless contend that "Strom, however, does not teach or suggest
facilitating substantially simultaneously user identification of the card values
and user identification of the card suit for each card of the presented hand in
which to hold." App. Br. 10. This might very well be the case for other
game variants disclosed in Strom.3 As such, Appellants contend that Strom
teaches "a two part game that allows a separate presentation and draw of the
suits and rank of cards." App. Br. 10. However, Appellants are not
persuasive that in the "Suit and Rank Format" variant also described by
Strom (i.e., the user is provided "both symbols and ranks together" (Strom
ii 53)), that Strom fails to teach "substantially simultaneously user
identification" of the suit and rank of the cards in the presented hand as
recited. See also Strom ii 20; Final Act. 3.
Appellants also contend that the user identification of the suit and
rank are "separate" and that "this separate user identification is expressly
claimed."4 Reply Br. 6. The Examiner states that "the claim language does
3 "In the play of the Double Draw format, the generic symbol (e.g., suit) is
separately provided from the specific symbol (e.g., rank)." Strom ii 54.
4 Appellants further contend that "the identification of a card is a singular
identification, while the claim language expressly states facilitating both
user identification of the card suits and user identification of the card values
for each card." Reply Br. 7.
4
Appeal2014-002354
Application 12/907,555
not show that." Ans. 4. "The [E]xaminer takes the position that the
identification of the cards to hold comprises substantially simultaneously
user identification of the card values and suits for each card to hold." Ans.
4. We are not persuaded the Examiner's understanding of this limitation is
in error. However, even should suit and rank be separately identified by the
user as asserted by Appellants, and even presuming arguendo that the claim
limitation of facilitating "substantially simultaneously" user identification
equates to "separate" recognition thereof, Appellants do not explain how the
different symbols located in different regions of Strom's display (see, e.g.,
Strom Fig. 7), fail to satisfy this limitation. Appellants do not identify how
much "separation" must occur but instead, only recite that the user's
identification of these symbols must occur "substantially simultaneously."
In short, Appellants do not explain how Strom fails to disclose the limitation
of facilitating this separate identification "substantially simultaneously" as
recited. Accordingly, Appellants are not persuasive that Strom fails to
facilitate "both user identification of the card values and user identification
of the card suits" (Reply Br. 6) in the manner claimed.
Appellants also address the limitation "replacing the card values for
any of the card values not held, and replacing the card suits for any of the
card suits not held in the presented hand via the processor after the
facilitation of holding the card values and card suits." Reply Br. 6 (emphasis
added). Here, it appears that Appellants are treating the emphasized "and"
conjunction between "replacing the card values" and "replacing the card
suits" as an "or," i.e., one or the other occurs. Reply Br. 6. As stated by our
reviewing court in In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998),
"the name of the game is the claim." We do not interpret the emphasized
5
Appeal2014-002354
Application 12/907,555
claim term "and" as excluding both events from occurring. Accordingly, we
do not find Appellants' contention persuasive.
Based on the record presented, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-2 0.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 as being anticipated by
Strom is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6