Ex Parte Cuddy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2016

11937326 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111937,326 11108/2007
29159 7590 10/26/2016
Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP (IGT)
2 N. LaSalle Street
Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60602-3801
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ryan W. Cuddy
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.
25094-4604 1548
EXAMINER
HOEL, MATTHEW D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2016 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):
amasia@ngelaw.com
patents@igt.com
ipusmail@ngelaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RYAN W. CUDDY and ERIC SATTERLIE
Appeal2014-009485
Application 11/937,326
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ryan W. Cuddy and Eric Satterlie ("Appellants") appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-3 and
9-20. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants submit the real party in interest is IGT. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-009485
Application 11/937 ,326
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A gaming system comprising:
a plurality of gaming devices, each gaming device including:
at least one input device,
at least one display device,
at least one processor, and
at least one memory device which stores a plurality of
instructions which when executed by the at least one processor,
cause the at least one processor to operate with the at least one
display device and the at least one input device to:
(a) enable a player to place a wager on a play of a
primary game,
b) for the wagered on play of the primary game:
(i) generate a primary game outcome,
(ii) display to the player the generated primary
game outcome,
(iii) determine any primary game award associated
with the displayed primary game outcome, and
(iv) display to the player any determined primary
game award, and
at least one controller configured to operate with each of said
gaming devices to:
(a) distinct from any placement of any wagers associated
with any plays of any primary games, accumulate a first quantity
of bonus sequence eligibility points for a first player at a first one
of said gaming devices if a first bonus sequence eligibility point
accumulation event occurs in association with the first one of
said gaming devices, said first quantity of bonus sequence
eligibility points being greater than zero;
(b) distinct from any placement of any wagers associated
with any plays of any primary games, accumulate a second,
different quantity of bonus sequence eligibility points for a
second player at a second one of said gaming devices if a second
bonus sequence eligibility point accumulation event occurs in
association with the second one of said gaming devices, said
2
Appeal2014-009485
Application 11/937 ,326
second, different quantity of bonus sequence eligibility points
being greater than zero;
( c) maintain and cause a display of a first progressive award
amount for the first player at the first one of said gaming devices,
wherein said first progressive award amount for the first player
is determined in accordance with the first quantity of bonus
sequence eligibility points accumulated for the first player, a base
amount and an incremental amount;
( d) maintain and cause a display of a second, different
progressive award amount for the second player at the second
one of said gaming devices, wherein said second, different
progressive award amount for the second player is determined in
accordance with the second, different quantity of bonus sequence
eligibility points accumulated for the second player, the base
amount and the incremental amount; and
( e) if a triggering event occurs, provide one of said progressive
award amounts to one of the players at one of said gaming
devices, wherein the triggering event is associated with the first
one of said gaming devices and the second one of said gaming
devices.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1-3, 9-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Acres (US 6,319,125 Bl, iss. Nov. 20, 2001)
and Olive (US 2006/0003835 Al, pub. Jan. 5, 2006).
2) Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Acres, Olive, and Baerlocher (US 2006/0040723
Al, pub. Feb. 23, 2006).
3) Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Acres.
4) Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Acres and Baerlocher.
3
Appeal2014-009485
Application 11/937 ,326
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
The Examiner finds that Acres discloses "all of the limitations of
these claims, but lacks specificity as to a primary game as claimed and to the
bonus sequence eligibility points being independent of the wagers on the
primary game." Final Act. 2. The Examiner then finds that "Olive allows
the tournament (or secondary progressive wager in addition to the wager on
the base game) to be optional with Olive's toggle feature." Id. at 4. The
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious "to apply the independence
or optionality of the progressive pool of Olive to the game of Acres"
resulting in advantageously "allow[ing] positive participation by the player
in the progressive bonus games, as opposed to passive participation by the
player by meeting minimum wagering requirements." Id. at 5---6.
Appellants contend that "Acres does not include any bonus sequence
eligibility points accumulated separate from any placement of any wager."
Appeal Br. 24. Appellants contend that Olive does not cure this deficiency
in Acres. Id. at 25. Appellants argue that Olive's progressive jackpot side
bet is "a wager (and thus not distinct from the placement of a wager)." Id. at
26.
In response, the Examiner explains that Acres' "acquired minimum
coin-in over the coin-in period" and Olive's "accumulated progressive
jackpot pool" are interpreted to be accumulated bonus sequence eligibility
points. Ans. 12-13. The Examiner further responds that "[t]he only
limitation with any patentable weight is the independence of the
accumulated bonus eligibility points from the wager on the base game."
Ans. 14. For the following reasons, we do not sustain the rejection.
4
Appeal2014-009485
Application 11/937 ,326
Acres discloses gaming device 300, such as a slot machine, wherein a
user places wager 301 and may win a jackpot 302. Acres, col. 4, 11. 6-20.
Primary game wager 301 is also known as coin-in. Id. at col. 4 11. 14--16.
Gaming device 300 "is configured as a component in a bonus promotion
system" that includes more than one interconnected gaming devices 300. Id.
at col. 4, 11. 9-10, col. 5, 11. 24--25. A "percentage 303 of each wager 301 is
accumulated into a bonus pool 304 for funding each bonus prize." Id. at col.
4, 11. 5 0-51. Cash bonus prize 3 07 is "a fixed cash prize funded by bonus
pool 304." Id. at col. 4, 11. 65---66. When "bonus pool 304 substantially
equals the cash bonus 307," a winner is randomly selected from all active
gaming devices 300." Id., col. 4, 11. 66- col. 5, 11. 1, col. 5, 11. 24--36.
Olive discloses gaming machine 10 including a button 20.2. Olive
i-fi-125-26. Button 20.2 "serves as a toggle between the state in which the
player's bet contributes only to the standard game (i.e., with the button 20.2
in its 'off' state) and the state in which a part of the player's bet contributes
to a progressive prize or some other tournament prize(i.e., with the button
20.2 in the 'on' state)." Id. i136. When button 20.2 is switched to the "on"
state, "a dedicated bet will be automatically taken from the buyer's credit
meter in addition to the original bet." Id. i-f 3 7. Participation in "the
secondary event is unrelated to participation in, or a result in respect of, the
base game of machine 10, apart from the making of a bet in respect of the
base game." Id. i1 42 (emphasis added).
The Examiner has not directed us to any disclosure in Acres to
support the finding that the acquired minimum coin-in over the coin-in
period for bonus prizes is "distinct from any placement of any wagers
associated with any play of any primary games" as recited in claims 1 and 9.
5
Appeal2014-009485
Application 11/937 ,326
Likewise, the Examiner has not directed us to any disclosure in Olive
to support the finding that the "accumulated progressive jackpot pool" is
"distinct from any placement of any wagers associated with any play of any
primary games" as recited in claims 1 and 9. The Examiner's finding that
Acres and/or Olive disclose the accumulation of a first or second quantity of
bonus sequence eligibility points distinct from any placement of wagers
associated with any plays of any primary games is not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. As the rejection of claims 1 and 9 is based
on erroneous factual findings, the conclusion of obviousness cannot stand.
See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (Holding that "[t]he
legal conclusion of obviousness must be supported by facts. Where the legal
conclusion is not supported by facts it cannot stand."). Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 9 and claims 2-3 which are
dependent on claim 1 and claims 10-15 and 18 which are dependent on
claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
Rejection 2
The Examiner rejects claims 16 and 17, which are dependent on claim
9, as unpatentable over Acres, Olive, and Baerlocher. Final Act. 6. The
Examiner does not rely on Baerlocher to cure the deficiencies in the
combination of Acres and Olive explained above. Id. at 6-7. For the same
reasons as stated with respect to claim 9, we also do not sustain the rejection
of claims 16 and 17.
Rejection 3
The Examiner finds that Acres discloses all the limitations of claim
19. Final Act. 7. Appellants contend that Acres does not disclose a
controller configured to "display a competitive bonus game to a plurality of
6
Appeal2014-009485
Application 11/937 ,326
players" and "provide a first bonus sequence award to a first one of the
players to which the competitive bonus game is displayed." Appeal Br. 34.
For the following reasons, we do not sustain the rejection.
We first construe the phrase "competitive group bonus game" recited
in claim 19. Claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259--
60 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054--55 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the Specification,
limitations from the Specification are not read into the claims. In re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Specification discloses "a plurality of players at a plurality of
linked gaming devices compete against one another for one or more
awards." Spec. i-f 113. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would
reasonably understand the phrase "competitive group bonus game" to be a
game wherein a plurality of players compete against one another for an
award or bonus." As noted above, Acres discloses that the winner of the
bonus game is randomly chosen from the bonus game participants. The
Examiner does not direct us to any disclosure in Acres of a competitive
group bonus game as we have construed that phrase. Final Act. 7-8; see
also Ans. 12-14. Consequently, the rejection is not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence and we do not sustain the rejection of claim
19.
7
Appeal2014-009485
Application 11/937 ,326
Rejection 4
The Examiner rejects claim 20 as unpatentable over Acres and
Baerlocher. Final Act. 9. Claim 20 is dependent on claim 19. The
Examiner does not rely on Baerlocher to cure the deficiencies in Acres noted
above. Id. at 9--10. For the same reasons as stated with respect to claim 19,
we likewise do not sustain the rejection of claim 20.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
8