Ex Parte Hamlin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2017

13469170 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2017)

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.
13/469,170 05/11/2012 Vernon W. Hamlin 247079-002342USPT 7094
70243 7590
NIXON PEABODY LLP
70 West Madison, Suite 3500
CHICAGO, IL 60602
EXAMINER
MYHR, JUSTIN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2017 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):
docketingchicago @ nixonpeabody.com
ipairlink @ nixonpeabody. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VERNON W. HAMLIN, EDWARD BRUNELL,
FAITH LEBRUN JENNINGS, MICHAEL DICILLO,
and ERIC M. PRYZBY
Appeal 2015-003 6591
Application 13/469,1702
Technology Center 3700
Before BRUCE T. WIEDER, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
25—37 and 39—48. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Oct. 13,
2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 3, 2015), and the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 3, 2014) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,”
mailed May 13, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is WMS Gaming Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-003659
Application 13/469,170
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, the Specification relates “generally to
wagering game systems, and more particularly to using the environments
and ecologies around a wagering gaming system to control motion capable
chairs.” Spec. 13.
CLAIMS
Claims 25—37 and 39-483 are on appeal. Claim 25 is illustrative of
the appealed claims and recites:
25. A wagering game system including a gaming machine
configured to present a wagering game upon which monetary
value may be wagered and a motion-capable chair proximal the
gaming machine, the system comprising:
one or more sensors sensing an environment around the
gaming machine;
a chair control unit including one or more processors
executing instructions that cause the gaming system to:
receive signals, from the gaming machine,
corresponding to one or more chair motions of a plurality
of different chair motions and transmit commands to the
motion-capable chair that cause the motion-capable chair
to execute the corresponding one or more chair motions;
receive sensory data, from the one or more sensors,
representing an event or condition of the environment that
is not related to any of the wagering game, the motion-
capable chair, and a player utilizing the gaming machine;
analyze the sensory data and, based on the analysis,
assign at least one chair motion to the sensory data, the at
least one chair motion being selected from the plurality of
different chair motions; and
3 Claim 38 has been indicated as allowable over the prior art (Final Act. 9)
and is thus not before us on Appeal.
2
Appeal 2015-003659
Application 13/469,170
transmit commands to the motion-capable chair that
cause the motion-capable chair to execute the assigned at
least one chair motion.
Appeal Br. 18.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 25—28, 30-32, 34—37, and 41—484 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Duran.5
2. The Examiner rejects claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Duran.
3. The Examiner rejects claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Duran in view of Park.6
4. The Examiner rejects claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Duran in view of Squilla.7
5. The Examiner rejects claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Duran in view of Thomer.8
DISCUSSION
Anticipation
Appellants group claims 25—28, 30-32, 34—37, and 41—48 as a single
group and present arguments only with respect to claim 25. Appeal Br. 11.
4 The heading for this rejection includes claim 33 and excludes claim 34.
Final Act. 3. However, the body of the rejection makes clear that the
Examiner intended to include claim 34 and not claim 33 in this rejection. Id.
at 5.
5 Duran et al., US 2008/0111408 Al, pub. May 15, 2008 (“Duran”).
6 Park, US 2003/0060741 Al, pub. Mar. 27, 2003.
7 Squilla et al., US 2009/0182577 Al, pub. July 16, 2009 (“Squilla”).
8 Thomer, US 2008/0280678 Al, pub. Nov. 13, 2008.
3
Appeal 2015-003659
Application 13/469,170
We address claim 25 below, and claims 26—28, 30-32, 34—37, and 41—48
stand or fall with claim 25.
Independent claim 25 requires, inter alia, that a chair control unit has
the ability to receive sensory data from the environment unrelated to the
game, chair or player; to analyze the data; and assign chair motion based on
the analysis. With respect to these requirements, the Examiner finds that
Duran “teaches the use of an audio or video camera sensor to capture
information concerning the environment” from which chair motions are
assigned. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Duran || 68, 73). Further, in response to
Appellants’ argument, the Examiner finds that Duran’s chair would react to
any external audio source as it would to any audio produced by a game or
movie. Ans. 3^4. In particular, the Examiner notes that Duran teaches that
the chair will react to the bass present in the audio signal “and that the chair
does this separate from vibration commands sent by a gaming console.” Id.
at 4 (citing Duran || 68, 73).
Claim 25 also requires that the chair control unit and the chair have
the capability of selecting and providing “one or more chair motions of a
plurality of different chair motions” based on received signals. The
Examiner finds that Duran discloses a chair with such capabilities based on
the presence of different vibration motors in the chair. Final Act. 3 (citing
Duran ^ 8, 41, 65); see also Ans. 5—6.
As discussed below, we are not persuaded of reversible error by
Appellants’ arguments regarding the rejection of claim 25.
Duran discloses, in relevant part, a chair pad that may include a
microphone and/or a camera to capture audio and video signals in order to
control vibration motors. Duran 173. Additionally, Duran discloses:
4
Appeal 2015-003659
Application 13/469,170
It will be appreciated that the chair subsystem 205 can use
aspects of the audio signals or video signal instead of the
vibration feedback signal to control the various functions
described herein. For example, the chair subsystem 205 may
convert one or more aspects of the audio signals, e.g. the bass, to
the in-chair motor control signals, which may be used to control
the various vibration motors 225 in the chair 100. The amount
of the bass may define the selection and intensity of the vibration
motors 225. As another example, the chair subsystem 205 may
convert one or more aspects of the audio signals, e.g., the bass,
to control the lighting 245. The amount of bass may define the
amount of flicker, the color, etc.
Id. at | 68.
Appellants first argue that Duran does not disclose sensing non-game
related data from the environment. Appeal Br. 11—13. Appellants assert that
the intended purpose of Duran’s device is to react to events in a film or
game; that in the context of a movie theater, the only audio and video
present is produced by the film; and that Duran does not explicitly or
inherently disclose capturing sensory data that is unrelated to the film or
game. Id. We are not persuaded. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that
Duran’s use of microphones to capture audio signals and disclosure that the
“amount of [] bass may define the selection and intensity of the vibration
motors” (Duran | 68) is sufficient to show that Duran anticipates the argued
limitations. Duran discloses that the chair pads may include microphones to
capture audio signals, which are then used to control the vibration motors.
Though Duran’s intent may be to capture audio related to a game or film, we
agree with the Examiner that Duran’s use of a microphone to capture audio
signals would necessarily capture and react to audio from the environment
that is not related to the game, chair, or player.
5
Appeal 2015-003659
Application 13/469,170
Next, Appellants argue that the audio and video signals in Duran are
not sensory data representing the environment. Appeal Br. 13—14.
Appellants assert that Duran only teaches that the audio and video signals
include specific instructions’” related to the video game in order to
activate the vibration motors. Id. at 13. Appellants assert that “[t]here is no
teaching or suggestion provided by Duran that the disclosed game chair is
configured or configurable to receive random sensory data from the
environment, analyze the random data, and assign a selected chair motion to
the random data.” Id. We disagree. First, we note that the claim does not
require receiving and analyzing “random” data. Rather, the claim requires
only receiving and analyzing sensory data that is not related to the game,
chair, or player. Thus, so long as the sensory data is not related to the game,
chair, or player, it may include “specific instructions” and still anticipate the
claims. Furthermore, Duran teaches that the vibration motors may be
controlled by specific aspects of the audio signal, e.g., the amount of bass,
and we fail to see the distinction between the amount of bass in an audio
signal and the claimed sensory data, contrary to Appellants’ assertions.
Finally, Appellants argue that Duran fails to disclose selecting a
motion from a plurality of different chair motions. Appeal Br. 15—16. In
support, Appellants assert that “[a]s evidenced by the [Specification], the
Appellants’ different chair motions are each discrete and distinct movements
of the motion-capable chair, as opposed to simply vibrating different areas
of the chair.” Id. (citing Spec. 122). Appellants note that this capability
allows for the claimed analysis to tailor its response to a wide range of
sensory data. Id. However, we find that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claims in light of the Specification does not preclude the
6
Appeal 2015-003659
Application 13/469,170
use of vibrations in different parts of the chair from being considered a
plurality of different chair motions. The Specification discloses only that
actuators “may be controlled to cause the chair to tilt, rotate, slide ... or
otherwise move in various ways.” Spec. 122. We are not persuaded that
these examples of various movements provide a limiting definition of what
must be considered “different chair motions” as required by the claim. We
agree with the Examiner that different patterns of vibration, and in particular
vibration at different areas of the chair, would comport with the broadest
reasonable definition of “a plurality of different chair motions.” Further, we
note that Duran also discloses that the motion provided may be tailored
based on the sensory data received. For example, Duran discloses that “[t]he
amount of [] bass may define the selection and intensity of the vibration
motors.'1'’ Duran | 68 (emphasis added).
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error with respect to
the rejection of claim 25. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 25
as anticipated. We also sustain the rejection of claims 26—28, 30-32, 34—37,
and 41—48, which fall with claim 25.
Obviousness
Appellants present separate arguments only with respect to the
obviousness rejection of claim 33. Appeal Br. 16—17. We sustain the
rejections of claims 29, 39, and 40 for the reasons discussed above, and we
separately address claim 33 below.
Claim 33 depends from claim 25 and further requires “wherein
assigning the chair motion includes randomly selecting the chair motion
from the plurality of different chair motions.” Appeal Br. 19. The Examiner
acknowledges that Duran does not disclose randomly selecting the chair
7
Appeal 2015-003659
Application 13/469,170
motion. Final Act. 8. However, the Examiner finds that Park discloses the
use of random vibration patterns in order to massage a seat occupant, and the
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Duran
“us[ing] the massage techniques of Park in order to provide a more pleasant
experience for a seat occupant by providing an effective massage via random
seat vibrations.” Id. (citing Park | 68).
Appellants first argue that executing a programmed random pattern, as
in Park, is not equivalent to randomly selecting motion based on an analysis
of sensory data. However, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck
& Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants’ argument here
fails to consider the teachings of Duran, which include the receipt and
analysis of sensory data to control chair motion. We agree with the
Examiner that Park’s teaching of random vibrations combined with Duran’s
device would at least suggest the random selection of chair motion as
claimed.
Appellants also argue that Park uses only a single reciprocating rod to
produce vibrations and thus cannot comprise a selection from a plurality of
motions as claimed. Appeal Br. 17. However, “[t]he test for obviousness is
not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference .... Rather, the test
is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.” Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. The rejection
does not propose to incorporate Park’s single reciprocating rod into Duran’s
8
Appeal 2015-003659
Application 13/469,170
chair. Rather, the rejection relies only on Park’s teaching regarding the use
of random vibrations for a massaging effect.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error with respect to
the rejection of claim 33, and thus, we sustain the rejection.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 25—37 and 39-48 for the reasons
discussed herein.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9