Ex Parte Keilwert

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 19, 2017

13870713 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 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. 13/870,713 04/25/2013 Stefan Keilwert 7770-52X/GTC0052-002 9031 141947 7590 10/23/2017 S»aae Patent Crmim/TCrT EXAMINER PO BOX 30789 RALEIGH, NC 27622-0789 CARTER, KEVIN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3716 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/23/2017 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): patents@igt.com instructions @ sagepat. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEFAN KEILWERT (Applicant: IGT CANADA SOLUTIONS ULC) Appeal 2016-002953 Application 13/870,713 Technology Center 3700 Before JAMES P. CALVE, LEE L. STEPINA, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—5, 7—17, 19, and 20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2016-002953 Application 13/870,713 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a gaming machine having a camera for adapting displayed images to non-playing observers. Spec. 1:6—8. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A gaming machine comprising: at least one display screen for displaying a game of chance; a digital camera for taking at least one picture of at least one non-player in a field of view of the camera while the gaming machine is not being actively played; a processor for controlling the at least one display screen to display the game of chance, having a pseudo-random element, and any award to a player based on an outcome of the game, when the gaming machine is being actively played; detection software for detecting physical characteristics of the non-player from the picture, the physical characteristics detected comprising at least one of gender, age, clothing, body type, movement, and facial features; and display software for displaying on the at least one display screen, during an attract mode of the gaming machine, a customized animation emulating detected physical features of the non-player, where the detected features used for customizing the animation comprise at least one of gender, age, clothing, body type, and facial features of the non-player. Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Block US 2011/0183732 A1 July 28, 2011 Chudd US 2012/0322542 A1 Dec. 20,2012 2 Appeal 2016-002953 Application 13/870,713 REJECTIONS (I) Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9-14, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chudd. (II) Claims 3, 4, 8, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chudd and Block. OPINION Rejection (I); Chudd Appellant makes arguments for the patentability of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9—14, 17, 19, and 20 as a group (Appeal Br. 5—6), and we select claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Chudd discloses most of the elements required by claim 1, including “a digital camera for taking at least one picture of at least one non-player” and “detection software for detecting physical characteristics of the non-player from the picture,” but “does not explicitly disclose that the detected non-player physical characteristics comprise at least one of gender, age, clothing, body type, and facial features, and displaying an animation emulated based on the detected features of the non-player.” Final Act. 2—3. Nonetheless, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious “to detect specific physical features of both players who are actively playing a wagering game machine and surrounding players who are not actively playing a wagering game machine, and [to use] these features to display an animation” because Chudd “discloses utilizing a camera to detect features of patrons in a casino, and utilizing these detected features to create an animated avatar on the wagering game display.” Id. at 3 Appeal 2016-002953 Application 13/870,713 3^4. In this regard, the Examiner finds that “[b]y displaying a customized animation of a detected individual located nearby a wagering game machine (non-player), a potential player is provided visual stimulation that could possibly attract their attention as the[y] walk throughout the casino, and subsequently entice them to play a wagering game machine.” Id. at 4. Appellant contends the Examiner’s rationale for modifying Chudd is deficient, and “[tjthere is absolutely no suggestion by Chudd to customize the attract mode for a passerby.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant also states, “Chudd is very content with his technique to start up a conventional attract mode upon the detection of a passerby and does not indicate that there is any improvement to be obtained by customizing the attract mode in the manner claimed in Claims 1 and 13.” Id. at 6. In response, the Examiner discusses the disclosure in paragraphs 46 and 47 of Chudd and finds, among other things, that Chudd discloses displaying customized videos to attract players to play a gaming machine, Chudd teaches acquiring images of players and incorporates those images into a game as an animated avatar or game image, and the attract mode in Chudd is not merely conventional. Ans. 4—6. In reply, Appellant states: Applicant’s basic argument for the patentability of independent Claims 1 and 13 is that Chudd, with regard to Chudd’s slot machine attract mode, merely teaches to use a camera to detect the existence of a passerby and then start up a conventional attract mode. No physical features of the passerby detected by the camera are used to customize the attract mode. Only starting up the attract mode when there is a passerby limits the noise generated in a casino. Reply Br. 1. Appellant also contends: 4 Appeal 2016-002953 Application 13/870,713 The [Ejxaminer is totally taking Chubb’s mentioning of customized videos during an attract mode out of context. Paragraph 0046 is referring to the gaming machine generating a default, standard attract mode or an attract mode video that is customized for the casino (by adding “information”) and which is exactly the same for every passerby. Id. at 2. On page 3 of the Reply Brief, Appellant continues the discussion of paragraphs 46 and 47 of Chudd, stating “Chudd is only mentioning that the casino may make a customized attract mode that is exactly the same each time.” The Examiner has the better position. Appellant’s arguments do not persuasively address the Examiner’s rejection, which modifies Chudd “to detect specific physical features of both players who are actively playing a wagering game machine and surrounding players who are not actively playing a wagering game machine, and [to use] these features to display an animation.” Final Act. 3. Rather, a substantial portion of Appellant’s argument amounts to an assertion that Chudd does not anticipate the subject matter of claim 1, which fails to apprise us of Examiner error in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). To the extent Appellant asserts that the reasoning provided by the Examiner for the above-noted modification is deficient, we disagree. Chudd states, “[djuring idle periods, the gaming machine may display a sequence of audio and/or visual attraction messages to attract potential players to the gaming machine. The videos may also be customized for or to provide any appropriate information.” Chudd 146 (emphasis added). Thus, the Examiner’s finding that Chudd customizes videos to attract non-players is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Further, as explained in paragraph 47 of Chudd, a sensor, such as a camera, may capture video 5 Appeal 2016-002953 Application 13/870,713 images of a player and incorporate these into a game, and the sensor may trigger an attract mode when detecting the presence of a nearby player. In light of this disclosure, the Examiner’s proposed modification to display a customized animation of a non-player (in a similar manner as Chudd already provides an animation of a player) as “visual stimulation that could possibly attract their attention as the[y] walk throughout the casino, and subsequently entice them to play a wagering game machine” (Final Act. 4) is supported by rational underpinnings. In other words, Chudd intends to attract potential players via a customized attract mode that includes videos and uses the sensor to trigger videos when potential players are nearby. It would have been obvious to modify Chudd as the Examiner proposes in order to use images Chudd already captures1 to accomplish what Chudd already intends to do, namely, attract potential players, using techniques Chudd already uses to enhance game interest for players. See Final Act. 2-4. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9-14, 17, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over Chudd. Rejection (II); Chudd and Block Appellant relies on the same arguments discussed above regarding claim 1 to address the rejection of claims 3,4, 8, 15, and 16 as unpatentable over Chudd and Block. Appeal Br. 6. For the same reasons discussed above regarding Rejection (I), we sustain Rejection (II). 1 Appellant states, “the Chudd camera captures all details of whatever the camera sees, since this is the inherent nature of a camera.” Reply Br. 2; see also Ans. 3 (stating, “Chudd differentiates between a player actively using the gaming machine and a player in the surrounding area of the gaming machine, and describes that a camera can acquire an image of either one or both of the players.” (emphasis omitted)). 6 Appeal 2016-002953 Application 13/870,713 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—5, 7—17, 19, and 20 is affirmed. 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7