Ex Parte Lutnick et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2019

14156939 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/156,939 01/16/2014
63710 7590 03/01/2019
INNOVATION DIVISION
CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P.
110 EAST 59TH STREET (6TH FLOOR)
NEW YORK, NY 10022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Howard W. Lutnick
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.
07-2128-C2 7382
EXAMINER
PINHEIRO, JASON PAUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2019 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):
patentdocketing@cantor.com
lkorovich@cantor.com
phowe@cantor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HOWARD W. LUTNICK, DEAN P. ALDERUCCI,
and GEOFFREY M. GELMAN
(Applicant: CFPH, LLC)
Appeal 2018-006418
Application 14/156,939
Technology Center 3700
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-006418
Application 14/156,939
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellants' claims are directed generally to a gaming device for
"play[ing] games automatically without input from a player." Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
in response to receiving a request to play a series of games
on behalf of a player, making, by a computing device, a plurality
of respective decisions in which each of the plurality of
respective decisions is made at a respective intermediate point in
a different one of a plurality of games in the series of games for
the player without input, within the series of games, from the
player;
determining, by the computing device, for each game of
the plurality of games, a respective final outcome based on a
respective intermediate point in that game and a respective
decision made for that game out of the plurality of respective
decisions;
in response to determining that a second intermediate
point of a second game in the series of games satisfies one or
more criteria, soliciting, by the computing device and from the
player, a second decision to be made by the player in the second
game; and
determining, by the computing device, a second final
outcome of the second game based on a result of soliciting the
second decision from the player.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
2
Appeal2018-006418
Application 14/156,939
Mruk
Lutnick
REITZEN
Walker
US 8,070,575 B2
US 8,070,582 B2
US 2002/0019253 Al
US 2003/0114217 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Dec. 6, 2011
Dec. 6, 2011
Feb. 14,2002
June 19, 2003
Claim 1-27 stands rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
nonstatutory double patenting over Mruk and Lutnick. Ans. 2.
Claims 1-5 and 7-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as being
anticipated by Walker. Ans. 4.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Walker and Reitzen. Ans. 12.
ANALYSIS
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
Appellants do not contest this rejection and, as such, we summarily
affirm the Examiner's rejection.
Anticipation
Appellants argue claims 1-5 and 7-27 as a group. We select claim 1
as representative and these claims stand or fall with our disposition of claim
I. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(vii) (2011).
Appellants' entire substantive argument in opposition to the
anticipation rejection, other than citing case law and reciting pertinent
paragraphs from the prior art, is as follows:
This is clearly not a teaching of the claim limitations. This is a
teaching of two modes: automated play and manual play.
Nowhere is there any discussion at all regarding any criteria of
any intermediate points in any game. So there cannot possibly
3
Appeal2018-006418
Application 14/156,939
be a teaching or suggestion of the claim limitation that relies on
such criteria.
App. Br. 7.
While it is true that two such modes are found in Walker, even in
Appellants' cited portion of Walker, it is clear that Walker also discloses a
third, hybrid gameplay whereby "[i]t is also the case that game play may be
partly governed by one or more decision rules, while also allowing for some
player input into the game play cycle." Walker ,r 196. Given this teaching,
Walker teaches a mode whereby gameplay proceeds automatically according
to the rules, but at other, intermediate points in the game, further user input
is necessary to proceed, similar to that found in the claims. Ans. 14.
Without more from Appellants we are not apprised of error in the
Examiner's rejection.
Obviousness
Appellants contend that claim 6 should be allowable based on its
dependency on allowable claim 1. App. Br. 9. As indicated above,
however, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. Thus,
we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6 for the same reasons.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject
claims 1-2 7.
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
4