Ex Parte Pacey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 21, 2012

10657650 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2012)

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. 10/657,650 09/08/2003 Larry J. Pacey 247079-000134USPT 2836 70243 7590 11/21/2012 NIXON PEABODY LLP 300 S. Riverside Plaza 16th Floor CHICAGO, IL 60606 EXAMINER HOEL, MATTHEW D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3714 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/21/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte LARRY J. PACEY, JASON C. GILMORE, and MICHAEL P. CASEY ____________________ Appeal 2010-008884 Application 10/657,650 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and REMY J. VANOPHEM, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008884 Application 10/657,650 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 30-50. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to a gaming machine and method for performing real-time 3D rendering of gaming events. Claim 30, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 30. A method of operating a gaming system comprising: storing simulation rule data and physical object data, the physical object data defining physical objects, the simulation rule data defining rules of a simulated world that affect the physical objects, the simulation rule data and the physical object data being selected to yield a pre-selected desired outcome probability distribution of a plurality of possible simulated outcomes; accepting a wager to play a wagering game; based on the interaction of the physical object data and the simulation rule data, simulating actions of the physical objects within the simulated world to randomly select a simulated outcome from the plurality of possible simulated outcomes according to the desired outcome probability distribution graphically rendering the actions and the simulated outcome such that the desired outcome probability distribution is readily apparent and discernible to a player of the wagering game; and providing an award if the selected simulated outcome represents a winning condition. Appeal 2010-008884 Application 10/657,650 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Morris Travis Schlottmann US 5,324,035 US 5,380,007 US 6,824,467 B2 Jun. 28, 1994 Jan. 10, 1995 Nov. 30, 2004 Vincent US 2004/0015953 A1 Jan. 22, 2004 REJECTIONS Claims 30 to 34, 38, 39, 40 to 44, 48, 49 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Travis and Schlottmann. Ans. 4.1 Claims 36, 37, 46, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Travis, Schlottmann and Morris. Ans. 10. Claims 35 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Travis, Schlottmann, Morris and Vincent. Ans. 11. An Oral Hearing was conducted on Nov. 9, 2012. OPINION The Appellants state that claims 30-50 are one group that will stand or fall together. App. Br. 5. Accordingly, we will confine our discussion to the errors alleged with regard to the rejection of claim 30. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). The Appellants argue that Schlottmann does not describe a method where a “model based on physical object data and simulation rule data are 1 The Examiner states that claim 50 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 30. Ans. 10. Appellants have stated that claims 30-50 stand or fall together. The Examiner appears to have inadvertently omitted claim 50 in the rejection statement. Appeal 2010-008884 Application 10/657,650 4 selected in order to achieve the desired probability distribution”. App. Br. 8. The Appellants argue that Schlottmann, by first creating a model based on realistic parameters and then determining the probability distribution using a Monte Carlo method, essentially does the opposite of what is claimed. Reply Br. 1-2. The Examiner correctly found that Schlottmann describes the definition 51, testing 52 and refinement 53 of a model. Ans. 12-13 citing Schlottmann Fig. 4, col. 7 ll. 24-44. Further, Schlottmann’s process includes evaluation of an initial set of outcomes and alteration of the initial model if the distribution is not satisfactory, for example, by “provid[ing] a realistic simulation of actual physical game conditions or provid[ing] a distribution which will be conducive to generating player interest and excitement.” Schlottman col. 7 ll. 32-34. The Appellants reply again that the probability distribution in Schlottmann is determined after the model is formulated. Reply Br. 4. First, claim 30 does not preclude additional steps, such as iterative development. “[P]re-selected” does not preclude selection before redefinition of Schlottmann’s parameters. See Schlottmann Fig. 4 (returning to step 51). Second, the Monte Carlo method is used in Schlottmann because the complexity of pachinko makes it difficult to use a calculative approach to determine probabilities. Col. 6, ll. 13-21. This would not be necessary if Schlottmann’s technique is applied to Travis’s game because, as the Examiner correctly points out, “Travis teaches that the desired outcome probability distribution is readily apparent and discernible to a player of the wagering game.” Ans. 5; See App. Br.7 (arguing this feature is lacking in Schlottmann where the Examiner relies on Travis). Regardless of whether Appeal 2010-008884 Application 10/657,650 5 the Monte Carlo test is incorporated, when Schlottmann’s technique of defining the physical parameters of the model is performed in order to provide a realistic simulation of a game having a known probability, or to achieve a particular distribution, and is applied to Travis’ game, the result is “simulation rule data and physical object data being selected to yield a pre- selected desired outcome probability distribution of a plurality of possible simulated outcomes” as required by Claim 30. The Examiner’s Answer thoroughly and comprehensively addresses all the issues raised in this appeal. Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner’s factual determinations, legal conclusions and response to the Appellants’ arguments as our own. See, e.g., In re Paulsen, 30 F 3d 1475, 1478 n. 6 (Fed. Cir. 1994). DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 30-50 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Klh