Ex Parte Sims et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 19, 2019

13714813 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/714,813 12/14/2012
63710 7590 06/24/2019
INNOVATION DIVISION
CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P.
110 EAST 59TH STREET (6TH FLOOR)
NEW YORK, NY 10022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Colin Sims
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.
ll-2345US 7782
EXAMINER
HARRINGTON, MICHAEL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2019 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 COLIN SIMS, RICHARD GRECH, JESSE JORDAN,
ARI FRIEDMAN, and JED KLECKNER
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813 1
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-21 and 23-40. Appellants have canceled claims 22 and 41. See
App. Br. 31, 3 5. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify CFPH, LLC as the real party in interest. App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to
methods and systems for delivery services. Spec., Abstract. In a disclosed
embodiment, a customer delivery area may be determined based on a
merchant's location and determined delivery radius. Spec. ,-J,-J 53, 55. A
second delivery area may be determined when it is determined that the
merchant has relocated to second location. Spec. ,-J,-J 53, 55. In another
embodiment, an auction process for determining a delivery agent for a
delivery job may be conducted such that, for each delivery job, bids may be
received from delivery agents. Spec. ,-J 179. If the delivery agent with the
winning bid was assigned previously to another delivery job that the delivery
job would interfere with, the delivery agent is prevented from winning the
bid to do the delivery job. Spec. ,-J 204. In yet another embodiment, a
delivery menu of a store may be created and organized by a delivery service
using pictures of the universal product codes (UPCs) of products. Spec.
,-J 65. The menu may be augmented with details about items identified by
the UPC. Spec. ,-J 67.
Independent claims 1, 21, and 29 are representative of the subject
matter on appeal and are reproduced below:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a computing device; and
a non-transitory machine readable medium having stored
thereon a plurality of
instructions that when executed by the computing device
cause the computing device to:
determine a delivery distance for a merchant;
2
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
determine a first location of the merchant;
determine a first area where delivery is available for
the merchant based on the delivery distance and the first
location;
enable delivery services from the merchant for users
of an internet based delivery service that are located in the
first area;
disable delivery services from the merchant for
users of the internet based delivery service that are not
located in the first area;
determine that the merchant has relocated to a
second location based on a location report from a mobile
device of the merchant;
based on the second location and the delivery
distance, determine a second area where delivery is
available for the merchant instead of the first area;
in response to determining the second area, enable
delivery services from the merchant for users of the
internet based delivery service that are located in the
second area; and
in response to determining the second area, disable
delivery services from the merchant for users of the
internet based delivery service that are not located in the
second area.
21. An apparatus comprising:
a computing device; and
a non-transitory machine readable medium having
stored thereon a plurality of instructions that when
executed by the computing device cause the computing
device to:
transmit information identifying a plurality of
delivery jobs that a user is eligible to bid on to the
user;
3
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
receive bids on the plurality of jobs, in which
the bids includes at least one bid from the user and
bids from other users;
determine that if the user wins the at least one
bid, then services to perform the job by the user
would interfere with the user performing another
delivery job that has been assigned to the user;
in response to determining the services would
interfere, prevent the user from winning the bid to
do the job.
29. An apparatus comprising:
a computing device; and
a non-transitory machine readable medium having
stored thereon a plurality of instructions that when
executed by the computing device cause the computing
device to:
receive a picture of a universal product code
of a product to be added to a delivery menu of a
store;
transmit an indication of the universal
product code to a delivery service, in which the
delivery service is configured to organize the menu
of the store so that users may order goods offered
by the store based on universal product codes
received from the store;
receive details about the item identified by
the universal product code;
transmit the details to the delivery service to
augment details available based on the universal
product code; and
transmit an indication that the product should
be made available in delivery menu with the details.
4
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
The Examiner's Rejections
1. Claims 38-40 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. Final Act. 26-28.
2. Claims 21, 23, 32, and 33 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
applicant regards as the invention. Final Act. 29-31.
3. Claims 22, 27, and 37 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, fourth paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to
further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for
failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Final Act. 31-32.
4. Claims 1-21 and 23-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.2 Final Act. 33-35.
5. Claims 29 and 30 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Chowdhary et al. (US 2004/0044582 Al;
Mar. 4, 2004) ("Chowdhary"). Final Act. 35-37.
6. Claims 1-4, 7, 10, and 11 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schwarz (US 2010/0076853
Al; Mar. 25, 2010) and Grigg et al. (US 2013/0046635 Al; Feb. 21, 2013)
("Grigg"). Final Act. 38-45.
2 Although the heading lists claims 1-40, the body of the rejection does not
include claim 22, which had been canceled by Appellants. See Final
Act. 33-34
5
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
7. Claim 5 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Schwarz, Grigg, and Tamassia et al. (US 8,645,222
Bl; Feb. 4, 2014) ("Tamassia"). Final Act. 45-46.
8. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schwarz, Grigg, and Spears (US
2010/0217635 Al; Aug. 26, 2010). Final Act. 46-48.
9. Claims 12, 33, and 34 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schwarz, Grigg, and Wied et al. (US
2005/0209913 Al; Sept. 22, 2005) ("Wied"). Final Act. 48-51.
10. Claims 13-15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Schwarz, Grigg, Wied, and Kadaba (US
2011/0029447 Al; Feb. 3, 2011). Final Act. 51-55.
11. Claims 16-19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Schwarz, Grigg, and Jaffri (US 2010/0323716
Al; Dec. 23, 2010). Final Act. 55-59.
12. Claim 20 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Schwarz, Grigg, and Official Notice. Final Act. 59-
60.
13. Claims 21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wied and Heimermann et al. (US
2002/0143692 Al; Oct. 3, 2002) ("Heimermann"). Final Act. 60-63.
14. Claims 25-27 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Wied, Heimermann, and Bennett et al. (US
8,346,676 Bl; Jan. 1, 2013) ("Bennett"). Final Act. 63-65.
6
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
15. Claim 28 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wied, Heimermann, and Official Notice. Final
Act. 65-66.
16. Claim 31 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chowdhary and Official Notice. Final Act. 66-67.
17. Claim 32 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Schwarz, Grigg, Wield, and Heimermann. Final
Act. 67-69.
18. Claims 35-37 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Schwarz, Grigg, Wield, and Bennett. Final
Act. 69-72.
19. Claims 38 and 39 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schwarz, Grigg, and Chowdhary. Final
Act. 73-75.
20. Claim 40 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Schwarz, Grigg, Chowdhary, and Official Notice.
Final Act. 75-77.
ANALYSIS3
Rejection of claim 22
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claim 22 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph. Final Act. 31-32. Appellants,
3 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Supplemental Appeal
Brief, filed August 22, 2017 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief, filed
February 26, 2018 ("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed
December 27, 2017 ("Ans."); and the Final Office Action, mailed
August 11, 2015 ("Final Act."), from which this Appeal is taken.
7
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
however, had previously canceled claim 22. See Final Act. 2; App. Br. 31.
Accordingly, this rejection is moot.
Rejection under 35 U.S. C. § 112, first paragraph (written description)
In rejecting claim 38 under 35 U.S.C § 112, first paragraph, as lacking
adequate written description support, the Examiner finds Appellants have
failed to disclose an apparatus with instructions embedded within
it that allow a merchant to determine users in an area and deliver
products to the users ( as disclosed in claim 1 ), with instructions
that allow a merchant to retrieve an image of a UPC, determine
information about the product using the UPC, and augmenting
information identified by the UPC (as disclosed in claim 38).
Final Act. 27. According to the Examiner, the "specification discloses two
separate systems for such a claim, and does not disclose that the systems can
be combined into a single invention." Final Act. 27. Therefore, the
Examiner finds claim 38 lacks adequate written description support. Final
Act. 27. In the Answer, the Examiner acknowledges the Specification
describes claim 1 ( e.g., Spec. ,i 4) and the additional limitations of claim 38
(e.g., Spec. ,i 12), but explains that "there is no linking statement or
disclosure that ties" the Specification's description of claim 1 to its
description of claim 38. Ans. 26-29 (citing Spec ,i,i 4, 12, 63, 67, 92).
To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure must
reasonably convey to skilled artisans that Appellants possessed the claimed
invention as of the filing date. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane). Specifically, the
description must "clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to
recognize that [ the inventor] invented what is claimed" and
8
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
the test requires an objective inquiry into the four comers of the
specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in
the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an
invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the
inventor actually invented the invention claimed.
Ariad Pharms., Inc., 598 F.3d at 1351 (internal quotations and citations
omitted). Additionally, the Examiner has the initial burden of presenting
evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in an
applicant's disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.
In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,265 (CCPA 1976).
Here, we find the Specification as originally filed provides adequate
written description support for claim 38. In particular, the Specification
describes that "[ a ]ny embodiments described in one or more of such patent
applications and/or herein may be used in any combination with one or more
embodiments described herein in any combination." Spec. ,i 20. Similarly,
the Specification provides that "[ a ]ny described functionality and/or
components may be used together in any combination. It should be
recognized that any arrangement or any number or types of components may
be used in various embodiments in any combination as desired." Spec. ,i 36.
In view of these disclosures, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand
that a disclosed embodiment describing claim l's apparatus4 could have
been combined with another disclosed embodiment describing claim 38's
additional limitations5 into a single invention, as recited in claim 38.
4 See, e.g., Spec. ,i 4, which describes limiting delivery service to a particular
area, which can be updated based on a merchant's location and determined
delivery radius.
5 See, e.g., Spec. ,i 12, which describes adding a picture of a product UPC
and details about the product to a delivery menu.
9
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
Accordingly, we find the inventors had possession of the claimed subject
matter ( claim 3 8) as of the filing date.
For the reasons discussed supra, on the record before us, we find
sufficient support for the disputed limitation. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, of
claim 38. For similar reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 39 and 40 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, which depend therefrom and were rejected in a similar manner by
the Examiner. See Final Act. 27-28.
Rejection under 35 U.S. C. § 112, second paragraph (indefiniteness)
Claim 21, in relevant part, recites,
determine that if the user wins the at least one bid, then
services to perform the job by the user would interfere with the
user performing another delivery job that has been assigned to
the user; [ and]
in response to determining the services would interfere,
prevent the user from winning the bid to do the job.
In rejecting claim 21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, the Examiner concludes the claim is "indefinite and unclear for
failing to particularly define [the] invention" because it recites an outcome
"if the user wins the at least one bid" but does not also recite "what would
happen if the user loses the bid." Final Act. 29-30. In other words, the
Examiner concludes the claim improperly "state[ s] a conditional statement,
without defining the opposing outcome." Final Act. 29. Additionally, the
Examiner concludes Appellants have "rendered this claim indefinite and
unclear for contradicting itself." Final Act. 30. The Examiner explains that
10
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
the claim states "that the user wins the bid, however then contradicts this by
saying that the system prevents the user from winning." Final Act. 30.
In response, Appellants assert there is no requirement for claims that
recite a condition to also recite the opposite condition. App. Br. 25.
Appellants further assert the Examiner has misread claim 21 because "[t]he
claim does not say the user wins the bid as the Examiner states." App. Br.
25.
The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
whether "those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the
claim is read in light of the specification." Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety
Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Merely that a
claim is broad does not mean that it is indefinite. See In re Johnson, 558
F.2d 1008, 1016 n.17 (CCPA 1977); In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689,693 (CCPA
1971); In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970).
Contrary to the Examiner's rejection, the fact that a claim recites only
one branch of a conditional statement does not render the claim indefinite.
Instead, the claim is simply broad, as the alternate branch need not be
satisfied to meet the claim. Gardner, 427 F.2d at 788 ("Breadth is not
indefiniteness."). Further, claim 21 does not require that a user actually win
a bid. Rather, claim 21 's "determine" step merely sets forth a conditional
statement such that the computing device determines that if the user were to
win, it would cause an interference. Therefore, contrary to the Examiner's
position, the claim does not contradict itself and, thus, has not been shown to
be indefinite.
For the reasons discussed supra, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. For
11
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
similar reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
23, 32, and 33 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, which
recite similar limitations and were rejected in a similar manner by the
Examiner. Final Act. 30-31.
Rejection under 35 U.S. C. § 112, fourth paragraph (improper dependency)
Claim 26 recites, in relevant part, "[t]he apparatus of claim 24, in
which the instructions are configured determine that a second user has
responded to the query with a time that is too early to meet a delivery
deadline for the delivery job." Claim 27 recites "[t]he apparatus of claim 26,
in which determining that the time is too early includes querying the
merchant asking if the time is too early."
The Examiner determines that claim 27 fails to narrow claim 26
because in claim 26, "the apparatus contains instructions to determine is the
time is too early; however in claim 27, the merchant is determining that the
time is too early." Final Act. 32. The Examiner explains
[b ]y querying a merchant, the merchant is determining if the time
is too early ( claim 27); however in claim 26, the apparatus
determines that the time in the query is too early. Therefore
claim 27 broadens the scope of claim 26, and claim 27 can be
infringed while claim 26 would not be infringed.
Ans. 32.
Appellants disagree with the Examiner and assert that claim 27 does
narrow claim 26 because, "[f]or example, instructions that cause a system to
determine something can include instructions that cause a system to query a
remote source asking the thing in order to make the determination." App.
Br. 27.
12
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
The fourth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 sets forth the
requirements for when a claim is dependent upon another. This statute
provides that a claim is dependent upon another if the claim: ( 1) refers to "a
claim previously set forth" and (2) "specif[ ies] a further limitation of the
subject matter claimed." 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph; see also
Monsanto Co. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 503 F.3d 1352, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
("To establish whether a claim is dependent upon another, this court
examines if the new claim both refers to an earlier claim and further limits
that referent.").
Contrary to the Examiner's rejection, claim 27 further limits claim 26
by including the additional step of "querying the merchant asking if the time
is too early." This additional step is not separate from, or a substitute for,
claim 26' s "instructions ... configured to ... determine that a second user
has responded to the query with a time that is too early." Rather, it is part of
claim 26's instructions as it describes an aspect of how the instructions are
configured to determine that the user's response time is too early.
For the reasons discussed supra, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 27 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph. For
similar reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 37
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, which recites similar
limitations and was rejected in a similar manner by the Examiner. Final
Act. 32.
Re} ection under 3 5 U.S. C. § 101
Appellants dispute the Examiner's conclusion that the pending claims
are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. App. Br. 8-15; Reply Br. 1.
13
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
Appellants assert the Examiner failed to make an evidentiary showing that
the claims are directed to an abstract idea. App. Br. 9, 11-12, 13-14. In
particular, Appellants assert the Examiner's determination that the claims
are directed to an abstract idea "since the functions within could be
performed by human activities" is inadequate. App. Br. 10, 12, 14.
Appellants further assert the Examiner's § 101 analysis merely lists the
recited steps for each set of independent claims, which identifies a process
but is not a proper formulation of an abstract idea. App. Br. 10, 12, 14.
Contrary to Appellants' assertions, there is no requirement that
Examiners must provide evidentiary support in every case before a
conclusion can be made that a claim is directed to an abstract idea. See, e.g.,
para. IV "July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility" to 2014 Interim
Guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility (2014 IEG), 79 Fed. Reg. 74618
(Dec. 16, 2014) ("The courts consider the determination of whether a claim
is eligible (which involves identifying whether an exception such as an
abstract idea is being claimed) to be a question of law. Accordingly, courts
do not rely on evidence that a claimed concept is a judicial exception, and in
most cases resolve the ultimate legal conclusion on eligibility without
making any factual findings.") (Emphasis added). Further, the Office did
not change the standard in the May 4, 2016 Memorandum, Formulating a
Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection and Evaluating the Applicant's
Response to a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection. Evidence may be helpful
in certain situations where, for instance, facts are in dispute. However, it is
not always necessary. It is not necessary in this case.
Additionally, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly noted that "the prima
facie case is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of
14
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
the burden of production." Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d. 1365, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). The
court has, thus, held that the USPTO carries its procedural burden when its
rejection satisfies the requirements of 3 5 U.S. C. § 13 2 by notifying the
applicant of the reasons for rejection, "together with such information and
references as may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the
prosecution of [the] application." In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
2011 ). Thus, all that is required of the Office is that it set forth the statutory
basis of the rejection in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to
meet the notice requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 132. Jung, 637 F.3d at 1362; see
also Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Section 132
"is violated when a rejection is so uninformative that it prevents the
applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for
rejection."). As set forth in the Final Office Action and explained in the
Examiner's Answer, we find the Examiner has met the notice requirements
of Section 132(a) in rejecting claims 1-21 and 23-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
See Final Act. 3-8, 33-35; Ans. 4-6, 9-11, 13-15. Contrary to Appellants'
assertions, the Examiner does not merely list the limitations of the claims,
but rather uses the claim language as a guide in describing the recited
concepts and explains how each of the recited concepts is an abstract idea.
See Final Act. 3-4 ( evaluating the series of steps recited in claim 1 and
characterizing them as reciting the abstract idea of "determining users in a
designated area around a merchant, offering products to those users, and
delivering products to those users"); Final Act. 5-6 ( evaluating the series of
steps recited in claim 21 and characterizing them as reciting the abstract idea
of "creating a contractual relationship and processing, and conducting an
15
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
auction"); Final Act. 6-7 ( evaluating the series of steps recited in claim 29
and characterizing them as reciting the abstract idea of "using categories to
organize, store and transmit information"); Ans. 4-5, 9-10, 14 (explaining
that Appellants have "failed to specifically direct their claims towards
anything more than the organization of human activities," which is an
"abstract idea ... similar to concepts previously identified by the Court as
abstract").
The Supreme Court's two-step framework guides our analysis of
patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 573
U.S. 208,217 (2014). In addition, the Office recently published revised
guidance for evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101,
specifically with respect to applying the Alice framework. USPTO's 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) ("Office Guidance"). If a claim falls within one of the statutory
categories of patent eligibility (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter) then the first inquiry is whether the claim is directed
to one of the judicially recognized exceptions (i.e., a law of nature, a natural
phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. As part of this
inquiry, we must "look at the 'focus of the claimed advance over the prior
art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a whole' is directed to excluded
subject matter." Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253,
1257-58 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal citations omitted). Per Office Guidance,
this first inquiry has two prongs of analysis: (i) does the claim recite a
judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea), and (ii) if so, is the judicial
exception integrated into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Under
the Office Guidance, if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical
16
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
application, see infra, the claim is eligible under § 101. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-
55. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., recites a judicial
exception and does not integrate the exception into a practical application),
the next step is to determine whether any element, or combination of
elements, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Alice,
573 U.S. at 217; 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Here, we conclude Appellants' claims are directed to certain methods
of organizing human activities, which are abstract ideas. We address each of
the independent claim sets separately infra.
Claims 1-20 and 32--40
Claim 1 is generally directed to enabling services for users within a
determined area based on a merchant's location and determined service
radius. This is consistent with how Appellants describe the claimed
invention. See Spec. ,-J,-J 53, 55; see also App. Br. 4-5.
Claim 1 is reproduced below and includes the following claim
limitations that recite this concept, emphasized in italics, with bracketed
lettering added for ease of reference.
1. An apparatus comprising:
a computing device; and
a non-transitory machine readable medium having stored
thereon a plurality of instructions that when executed by the
computing device cause the computing device to:
[a] determine a delivery distance for a merchant;
[b] determine a first location of the merchant;
[ c] determine a first area where delivery is available for
the merchant based on the delivery distance and the first
location;
17
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
[ d] enable delivery services from the merchant for users of
an internet based delivery service that are located in the first
area;
[ e] disable delivery services from the merchant for users
of the internet based delivery service that are not located in the
first area;
[ fJ determine that the merchant has relocated to a second
location based on a location report from a mobile device of the
merchant;
[g] based on the second location and the delivery distance,
determine a second area where delivery is available for the
merchant instead of the first area;
[h] in response to determining the second area, enable
delivery services from the merchant for users of the internet
based delivery service that are located in the second area; and
[i] in response to determining the second area, disable
delivery services from the merchant for users of the internet
based delivery service that are not located in the second area.
More particularly, enabling services for users within a determined
area based on a merchant's location and determined service radius comprises
determining a delivery distance for and a first location of the merchant (i.e.,
claim steps [a] and [b ]); determining a delivery area for the merchant based
on the delivery distance and merchant location (i.e., claim step [ c ]); enabling
delivery services for users within the delivery area (i.e., claims step [ d]); and
disabling services for users outside the delivery area (i.e., claim step [e]).
Claim steps [b-e] are simply repeated for a second location of the merchant
(i.e., claim steps [f]-[i]).
The concept recited in claim 1 is a basic sales technique-i.e., a
fundamental economic practice-and relates to marketing and sales
activities or behaviors based on business rules. Consistent with our Office
Guidance and case law, we conclude that this concept is a certain method of
18
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
organizing human activity and, thus, an abstract idea. See 84 Fed. Reg. at
52, 52 n.13; KomBea Corp. v. Noguar L.C., 73 F. Supp. 3d 1348, 1352-53
(D. Utah 2014), aff'd, 656 F. App'x 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming district
court ruling that claims directed to basic sales techniques executed with the
aid of a computer to create efficiencies were fundamental economic
practices, methods of organizing human activity, and, thus, abstract ideas);
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1317 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) ( concluding that claims directed to keeping and applying business
rules defining actions to be taken regarding certain received information to
be a method of organizing human activity and, thus, an abstract idea); Parus
Holdings, Inc. v. Sallie Mae Bank, 137 F. Supp. 3d 660 (D. Del. 2015), aff'd,
677 F. App'x 682 (Mem) (Fed. Cir. 2017) (affirming district court ruling
that claims directed to organizing business functions based on rules provided
by a user were a method of organizing human activity, and thus, an abstract
idea).
Because claim 1 recites a judicial exception, we next determine
whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical
application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. To determine whether the judicial
exception is integrated into a practical application, we identify whether there
are "any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial
exception(s)" and evaluate those elements to determine whether they
integrate the judicial exception into a recognized practical application.
84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55 (emphasis added); see also MANUAL OF PATENT
EXAMINING PROCEDURE ("MPEP") § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) (9th ed. Rev.
08.2017, Jan. 2018).
19
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
Here, claim 1 recites additional limitations including a computing
device, a non-transitory machine readable medium, an Internet-based
delivery service, and a mobile device. But Appellants do not provide any
specific showing, either in the claim language or the Specification, of an
improvement in these components, or that these components are being used
in a unique or unconventional manner different from their ordinary purpose.
In other words, the claim is not focused on an improvement to computers or
software as tools, but rather uses computers and software to execute the
judicial exception. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859
F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Elec. Pwr. Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830
F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 1 also recites steps [fJ-[i], which
repeat steps [b ]-[ e] of claim 1 for a second merchant location. Although
claim steps [f]-[i] may narrow the scope of the abstract idea, they do not
amount to an "inventive concept" that transforms the claim into a patent-
eligible application of an otherwise ineligible abstract idea. See 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52 n.12, 54, 54 n.22, 56.
Thus, we find the additional limitations of claim 1 do not integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application. More particularly, the claim
does not recite: (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or
other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (ii) use a
"particular machine" to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(b)); (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different
thing or state (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other meaningful
limitation (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See also 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
Additionally, as the Examiner explains (see Ans. 7), the claim's
recitation of transmitting or receiving certain information (e.g., location
20
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
report) is mere data-gathering and recites the type of extra-solution activity
(i.e., in addition to the judicial exception) the courts have determined
insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-
eligible application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); 84 Fed. Reg. at 55, 55 n.31;
see Bancorp Servs, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F. Supp. 2d
1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011) aff'd, 687 F.3d at 1266 (explaining that
"storing, retrieving, and providing data ... are inconsequential data
gathering and insignificant post solution activity"); Bilski v. Kappas, 561
U.S. 593, 612 (holding the use of well-known techniques to establish inputs
to the abstract idea as extra-solution activity that fails to make the
underlying concept patent eligible); Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355
( explaining that "selecting information, by content or source, for collection,
analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from
ordinary mental processes").
For at least the foregoing reasons, claim 1 does not integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application.
Because we determine claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea or
combination of abstract ideas, we analyze the claim under step two of Alice
to determine if there are additional limitations that individually, or as an
ordered combination, ensure the claim amounts to "significantly more" than
the abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo Collaborative
Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72-73, 77-79 (2012)). As
stated in the Office Guidance, many of the considerations to determine
whether the claim amounts to "significantly more" under step two of the
Alice framework are already considered as part of determining whether the
judicial exception has been integrated into a practical application. 84 Fed.
21
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
Reg. at 56. Thus, at this point of our analysis, we determine if the claim
adds a specific limitation, or combination of limitations, that is not
well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; or simply append
well-understood, routine, conventional activities at a high level of generality.
84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Here, Appellants assert the Examiner erred by failing to make an
evidentiary showing that the additional claim limitations of claim 1 do not
add significantly more to the alleged abstract idea. App. Br. 10-11. We
disagree.
The Examiner determines claim 1 "do[ es] not amount to significantly
more than the abstract idea itself since [it] require[s] no more than a generic
computer to perform generic computer functions ... that are well-
understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the
industry." Final Act. 33. The Examiner explains that "the generic computer
elements ( computing device, non-transitory machine readable medium)" do
not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as their implementation
would be routine in any computer implementation of the abstract idea.
Ans. 7.
The Examiner's determination is amply supported by, and fully
consistent with the Specification, which describes the components of the
claimed invention at a high level of generality in a manner that requires no
more than a general-purpose computer with generic computing elements.
Spec. ,-J 270 ("It will be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art
that the various processes described herein may be implemented by, e.g.,
appropriately programmed general purpose computers"); see also Spec.
,-J,-J 289-290 ( describing a computing device as a general-purpose computer);
22
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
Spec. ,i 21 ( describing computing devices including mobile devices,
cameras, and GPS devices in no more than generic terms); Spec. ,i 25
(describing internet based delivery service in no more than generic terms);
Spec. ,i 122 ( customer can use mobile device, e.g., smartphone, to scan a
UPC code of a good).
Claim l's recitation of an apparatus comprising a computing device, a
non-transitory machine readable medium, an Internet-based delivery service,
and a mobile device fails to transform a patent-ineligible concept into an
eligible one. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 ("Nearly every computer will
include a 'communications controller' and [a] 'data storage unit' capable of
performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions
required by the method claims."); see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 ("[T]he
mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible
abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea while
adding the words 'apply it' is not enough for patent eligibility") (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72 (internal quotation marks omitted)); BASCOM
Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348
(Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea on 'an Internet computer network' or on
a generic computer is still an abstract idea"); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Rather, the
claims recite both a generic computer element-a processor-and a series of
generic computer 'components' that merely restate their individual
functions-i.e., organizing, mapping, identifying, defining, detecting, and
modifying. That is to say, they merely describe the functions of the abstract
idea itself, without particularity. This is simply not enough under step
two.").
23
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
Appellants cannot reasonably contend that there is a genuine issue of
material fact ( and, therefore, a requirement for evidence) regarding the
operation of these components as well-understood, routine, or conventional
where, as here, there is nothing in the Specification to indicate that the
operations recited in the claim require any specialized hardware or inventive
computer components, invoke any assertedly inventive programming, or that
the claim is implemented using other than generic computer components.
The Federal Circuit, in accordance with Alice, has "repeatedly recognized
the absence of a genuine dispute as to eligibility" where claims have been
defended as involving an inventive concept based "merely on the idea of
using existing computers or the Internet to carry out conventional processes,
with no alteration of computer functionality." Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890
F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J., concurring) (citations omitted).
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's§ 101 rejection of claim 1.
We also sustain the Examiner's§ 101 rejection of claims 2-20 and 32-40,
which depend therefrom and were not argued separately with particularity.
Claims 21 and 23-28
Claim 21 is generally directed to a bidding auction for determining an
available delivery agent for a delivery job. This is consistent with how
Appellants describe the claimed invention. See Spec. ,-J,-J 179, 204; App.
Br. 5.
24
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
Claim 21 is reproduced below and includes the following claim
limitations that recite this concept, emphasized in italics.
21. An apparatus comprising:
a computing device; and
a non-transitory machine readable medium having stored thereon
a plurality of instructions that when executed by the computing device
cause the computing device to:
transmit information identifying a plurality of delivery jobs that
a user is eligible to bid on to the user;
receive bids on the plurality of jobs, in which the bids includes
at least one bid from the user and bids from other users;
determine that if the user wins the at least one bid, then services
to perform the job by the user would interfere with the user performing
another delivery job that has been assigned to the user;
in response to determining the services would interfere, prevent
the user from winning the bid to do the job.
More particularly, a bidding auction for determining an available
delivery agent for a delivery job comprises (i) transmitting the delivery jobs
to delivery agents (the claimed "transmit" step) and (ii) receiving bids on the
delivery jobs from the delivery agents (the claimed "receive" step).
The concept recited in claim 21, a bidding auction, is a fundamental
economic practice. Consistent with our Office Guidance and case law, we
conclude that this concept is a certain method of organizing human activity
and, thus, an abstract idea. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 52 n.13; OIP Techs., Inc.
v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (concluding
that claimed concept of "offer-based price optimization" is an abstract idea
"similar to other 'fundamental economic concepts' found to be abstract ideas
by the Supreme Court and this court"); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765
F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (determining that the claims "are squarely
25
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
about creating a contractual relationship ... that is beyond question of
ancient lineage"); Priceplay.com, Inc. v. AOL Advert., Inc., 83 F. Supp. 3d
577, 581 (D. Del. 2015), ajf'd, 627 F. App'x 925 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming
district court ruling that claims directed to performing a sales transaction in
conjunction with an auction and a competitive activity recited a fundamental
economic practice and, thus, an abstract idea); Morsa v. Facebook, Inc., 77
F. Supp. 3d 1007, 1014 (C.D. Cal. 2014), ajf'd, 622 F. App'x 915 (Fed. Cir.
2015) ( affirming district court ruling that claims directed to using a bidding
system to determine when and how advertisements will be displayed were
abstract); The Jewelry Channel, Inc. USA v. America's Collectibles Network,
Inc., 2014 WL 5386840 (PTAB 2014), *11, ajf'd, 672 F. App'x 997 (Mem)
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (affirming PTO ruling that claims directed to a reverse
auction were abstract and patent ineligible).
Because claim 21 recites a judicial exception, we next determine
whether any additional elements of the claim integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55; see also MPEP
§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h).
Here, claim 21 recites additional limitations, including a computing
device and a non-transitory machine readable medium. As discussed above,
Appellants do not provide any specific showing, either in the claim language
or the Specification, of an improvement in these components, or that these
components are being used in a unique or unconventional manner different
from their ordinary purpose. In other words, the claim is not focused on an
improvement to computers or software as tools, but rather uses computers
and software to execute the judicial exception. See Credit Acceptance, 859
F.3d at 1055; Elec. Pwr. Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354.
26
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
Claim 21 also recites that a delivery agent with a potential conflict is
prevented from winning the delivery job. More specifically, claim 21 recites
determining that if a delivery agent were to win a bid for a particular
delivery job, that there would be a conflict with another delivery job
previously assigned to the delivery agent (the claimed "determine" step), and
preventing the delivery agent who has such a conflict from winning the bid
to do the delivery job (the claimed "in response to" step). Although these
additional claim steps may narrow the scope of the recited abstract idea, i.e.,
the bidding auction, they do not amount to an "inventive concept" that
transforms the claim into a patent-eligible application of an otherwise
ineligible abstract idea. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.12, 54, 54 n.22, 56.
Thus, we find the additional limitations of claim 21 do not integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application. More particularly, the
claim does not recite: (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer
or other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (ii) use a
"particular machine" to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(b)); (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different
thing or state (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other meaningful
limitation (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See also 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
Additionally, as the Examiner explains (see Ans. 12), the claim's
recitations of transmitting or receiving certain information (e.g., delivery
jobs, bids) are mere data-gathering and recite the type of extra-solution
activity (i.e., in addition to the judicial exception) the courts have
determined insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a
patent-eligible application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); 84 Fed. Reg. at 55,
27
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
55 n.31; see Bancorp, 771 F. Supp. 2d at 1066, aff'd, 687 F.3d at 1266;
Bilski, 561 U.S. at 612; Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355.
For at least the foregoing reasons, the claim does not integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application.
Because we determine claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea or
combination of abstract ideas, we analyze the claim under step two of Alice
to determine if there are additional limitations that individually, or as an
ordered combination, ensure the claim amounts to "significantly more" than
the abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-
73, 77-79); 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. At this point of our analysis, we determine if
the claim adds a specific limitation, or combination of limitations, that is not
well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; or simply
appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities at a high level of
generality. 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Here, Appellants assert the Examiner erred by failing to make an
evidentiary showing that the additional claim limitations of claim 21 do not
add significantly more to the alleged abstract idea. App. Br. 12-13. We
disagree.
The Examiner determines claim 21 "do[ es] not amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea itself since [it] require[ s] no more
than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions ... that are
well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the
industry." Final Act. 34. The Examiner explains that "the generic computer
elements ( computing device, non-transitory machine readable medium)" do
not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as their implementation
28
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
would be routine in any computer implementation of the abstract idea. Ans.
12.
As discussed above with respect to our analysis of claim 1, the
Examiner's determination is amply supported by, and fully consistent with
the Specification, which describes the components of the claimed invention
at a high level of generality in a manner that requires no more than a
general-purpose computer with generic computing elements. Spec. ,i,i 21,
25, 122, 268-280, 289-290. Claim 21 's recitation of an apparatus
comprising a computing device and a non-transitory machine readable
medium fails to transform a patent-ineligible concept into an eligible one.
See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, 226; BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1348; Intellectual
Ventures I, 850 F.3d at 1341.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's§ 101 rejection of claim 21.
We also sustain the Examiner's§ 101 rejection of claims 23-28, which
depend therefrom and were not argued separately with particularity.
Claims 29-31
Claim 29 is generally directed to creating and organizing a store menu
using pictures and additional details. This is consistent with how Appellants
describe the claimed invention. See Spec. ,i,i 65, 67; see also App. Br. 5-6.
Claim 29 is reproduced below and includes the following claim
limitations that recite this concept, emphasized in italics.
29. An apparatus comprising:
a computing device; and
29
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
a non-transitory machine readable medium having stored thereon
a plurality of instructions that when executed by the computing device
cause the computing device to:
receive a picture of a universal product code of a product to be
added to a delivery menu of a store;
transmit an indication of the universal product code to a delivery
service, in which the delivery service is configured to organize the
menu of the store so that users may order goods offered by the store
based on universal product codes received from the store;
receive details about the item identified by the universal product
code;
transmit the details to the delivery service to augment details
available based on the universal product code; and
transmit an indication that the product should be made available
in delivery menu with the details.
More particularly, creating and organizing a store menu using pictures
and additional details comprises (i) adding a picture associated with a
product to a delivery menu of a store (the claimed "receive a picture" step);
(ii) organizing the menu of the store so that users may order goods offered
by the store based on information in the picture (the claimed "transmit an
indication" step); (iii) augmenting available details about the item identified
by information in the picture (the claimed "receive details" and "transmit the
details" steps); and (iv) indicating that the product, with its details, be made
available in the delivery menu ( the claimed "transmit an indication" step).
The concept recited in claim 29 relates to marketing and sales
activities or behaviors based on business rules. Consistent with our Office
Guidance and case law, we conclude that this concept is a certain method of
organizing human activity and, thus, an abstract idea. See 84 Fed. Reg. at
52, 52 n.13; Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244 (Fed. Cir.
2016) ( concluding claims directed to generating computerized restaurant
30
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
menus with certain features to be an ineligible abstract idea); Intellectual
Ventures I, 838 F.3d at 1317; Parus Holdings, 137 F. Supp. 3d at 660, aff'd,
677 F. App'x at 682 (Mem).
Because claim 29 recites a judicial exception, we next determine
whether any additional elements of the claim integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55; see also MPEP
§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h).
Here, the claim recites additional limitations, including a computing
device, a non-transitory machine readable medium, and a universal product
code (UPC). But Appellants do not provide any specific showing, either in
the claim language or the Specification, of an improvement in these
components, or that these components are being used in a unique or
unconventional manner different from their ordinary purpose. In other
words, the claim is not focused on an improvement to computers or software
as tools, but rather uses computers, software, and technology to execute the
judicial exception. See Credit Acceptance, 859 F.3d at 1055; Elec. Pwr.
Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354.
Thus, we find the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. More particularly, claim 29 does not
recite: (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other
technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (ii) use a "particular
machine" to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(b ));
(iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see
MPEP § 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(e)). See also 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
31
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
Additionally, as the Examiner explains (see Ans. 16-17), claim 29's
recitations of transmitting and receiving certain information ( e.g., a picture
of a UPC, an indication of a UPC, details about an item, indication that a
product should be made available in a delivery menu) are mere
data-gathering and recite the type of extra-solution activity (i.e., in addition
to the judicial exception) the courts have determined insufficient to
transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible
application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); 84 Fed. Reg. at 55, 55 n.31; see
Bancorp, 771 F. Supp. 2d at 1066, ajf'd, 687 F.3d at 1266; Bilski, 561 U.S.
at 612; Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355.
For at least the foregoing reasons, the additional limitations of claim
29 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Because we determine claim 29 is directed to an abstract idea or
combination of abstract ideas, we analyze the claims under step two of Alice
to determine if there are additional limitations that individually, or as an
ordered combination, ensure the claim amounts to "significantly more" than
the abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-
73, 77-79); 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. At this point of our analysis, we determine if
the claim adds a specific limitation, or combination of limitations, that is not
well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; or simply
appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities at a high level of
generality. 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Here, Appellants assert the Examiner erred by failing to make an
evidentiary showing that the additional claim limitations of claim 29 do not
add significantly more to the alleged abstract idea. App. Br. 14-15. We
disagree.
32
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
The Examiner determines claim 29 "do[ es] not amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea itself since [it] require[ s] no more
than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions ... that are
well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the
industry." Final Act. 35. The Examiner explains that "the generic computer
elements ( computing device, non-transitory machine readable medium)" are
"recited within the claim in high generality" and "do not add significantly
more to the abstract idea, as their implementation would be routine in any
computer implementation of the abstract idea." Ans. 17.
As discussed above regarding claim 1, the Examiner's determination
is amply supported by, and fully consistent with the Specification, which
describes the components of the claimed invention at a high level of
generality in a manner that requires no more than a general-purpose
computer with generic computing elements. Spec. ,i,i 21, 25, 122, 268-280,
289-90. Here, we also note that the use ofbarcodes, such as UPCs, on
products was well-known, routine and conventional at the time of the
invention. See Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F .3d
905, 911, 912 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 2000 (2018) (as part
of the§ 101 analysis of patent-ineligible claims directed to "using a marking
affixed to the outside of a mail object to communicate information about the
mail object," noting that "[t]he use of barcodes was commonplace and
conventional in 2001."); Siegel et al., US Patent Application Publication
2003/0096652 Al, Fig. 13, ,i 113 (published May 22, 2003) (explaining that
UPCs were well-known and affixed to most products sold in the United
States as of 2001). Claim 29's recitation of an apparatus comprising a
computing device, a non-transitory machine readable medium, and a UPC
33
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
fails to transform a patent-ineligible concept into an eligible one. See Alice,
573 U.S. at 223, 226; BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1348; Intellectual Ventures I,
850 F.3d at 1341.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's§ 101 rejection of claim 29.
We also sustain the Examiner's§ 101 rejection of claims 30 and 31, which
depend therefrom and were not argued separately with particularity.
Rejection under pre-AJA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
In rejecting claim 29, the Examiner finds Chowdhary discloses, inter
alia, "[ r Jeceiving a picture of a UPC code of a product to be added to a
delivery menu of a store." Final Act. 36. In particular, the Examiner finds
Chowdhary satisfies this limitation with its disclosure that a vendor may
maintain a catalog of items available for delivery, such that the vendors may
update the catalog with new items, including the UPC codes of the items.
Final Act. 36 ( citing Chowdhary ,-J,-J 6, 7, 12, 24, 25, 28). Appellants assert
the cited disclosures of Chowdhary do not teach transmission of or receipt of
a picture at all, but instead discuss a catalog that includes a price. App.
Br. 17. The Examiner responds that Appellants have "failed to define how a
UPC is represented by a picture" and have "not stated that a picture of a
barcode representing the UPC is received and stored, but instead [have]
limited it to the UPC itself." Ans. 18. Accordingly, the Examiner maintains
that "the recited disclosure of Chowdhary that receives and stores the UPC
of products meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed
invention." Ans. 18-19.
34
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
It is well settled that "[ a ]11 words in a claim must be considered in
judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson,
424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). The Examiner's findings for claim 29
do not address how Chowdhary discloses a receiving a "picture" of a UPC.
We agree with the Examiner that Appellants have not provided a limiting
definition for "a picture of a [UPC]," but to conclude that this term is the
same as a UPC itself, as the Examiner has, would impermissibly read the
term "picture" out of the claim. Accordingly, the Examiner's interpretation
of the disputed limitation as encompassing receiving a UPC code is
unreasonably broad. Moreover, even ifwe were to adopt the Examiner's
interpretation of a UPC as "a string of numbers that identify a product"
(Ans. 18), the Examiner still has not shown that the information Chowdhary
receives when it receives a UPC code is a "picture."
For the reasons discussed supra, and constrained by the record before
us, we are persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of independent
claim 29. Additionally, we do not sustain the Examiner's pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 30, which depends therefrom.
Rejections under pre-AJA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 1
Independent claim 1, in relevant part, recites
based on the second location and the delivery distance,
determine a second area where delivery is available for the
merchant instead of the first area;
in response to determining the second area, enable
delivery services from the merchant for users of the internet
based delivery service that are located in the second area; and
35
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
in response to determining the second area, disable
delivery services from the merchant for users of the internet
based delivery service that are not located in the second area.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of
Schwarz and Grigg for teaching these limitations. Final Act. 38-41 (citing
Schwarz ,i,i 27, 28, 106-118, 129-135; Grigg ,i,i 3, 4, 19, 22, 31, 34, 37, 49-
50, 53, 58, 66, 67, 69, 70).
Appellants argue the cited disclosures of Grigg "do not teach or
suggest anything regarding delivery," but "[i]nstead ... discuss advertising."
App. Br. 19. Appellants further argue that the cited disclosures of Schwarz
"do not teach or suggest a second area for a merchant," but "[r]ather, ...
discuss a merchant with a static area for delivery." App. Br. 20. Appellants
also assert "the Examiner ignores the 'in response to' portion of this claim."
App. Br. 20.
In response, the Examiner explains that "Schwarz was cited as
teaching a determining a delivery area for a merchant, and allowing
customers in that area to order items to be delivered, while outside that area,
user's cannot," whereas "Grigg was cited as teaching determining the
location of a mobile merchant, and determining the customers in the serving
area around the merchant as the merchant moves, wherein customers outside
the serving area cannot order goods." Ans. 19-21 (citing Schwarz,i,i 27,
107-118; Grigg ,i,i 3, 4, 37). The Examiner further explains that the cited
disclosures of Grigg teach "determining the location of the merchant as they
move, in order to determine the target customers that receive information,
wherein the customers that receive information are only within the target
range." Ans. 21. Based on these teachings, the Examiner explains that
Schwarz's "system and method of a merchant determining a plurality of
36
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
customers in a range around the merchant, wherein the merchant allows
delivery of ordered goods to the customers in the region" is being combined
with Grigg' s "system and method of a mobile merchant determining
customers in their vicinity and providing offers to the customers in the
surrounding region that the customers can buy." Ans. 22. In concluding
that the proposed combination would have been obvious, the Examiner
reasons that "[b ]y combining the teachings of Schwarz and Grigg, one
would reasonably predict the outcome of a mobile merchant being able to
determine delivery zones around them as the move, and determine customers
within those zones that can receive shipments, as the merchant moves."
Ans. 22.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error at least because Appellants'
arguments are not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner.
Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the combination of references,
taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee's invention to a person
having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F .2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed above, the Examiner relies on the
combination of Schwarz and Grigg, not Schwarz or Grigg alone, in rejecting
claim 1. See Ans. 19-22. Appellants do not persuasively rebut the
Examiner's findings, reasoning, and conclusion in the Reply Brief. See
Reply Br. 1. Moreover, Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because
Grigg and Schwarz in fact teach the disputed limitations. More specifically,
Grigg teaches applying its system in the delivery context. As cited by the
37
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
Examiner, Grigg teaches "information ... transmitted ... to a
geographically targeted audience in an area within range of the sales route of
an ice cream truck." Grigg ,i 70. Grigg further teaches that this information
"may be associated with a service, such as a package delivery service."
Grigg ,i 72. Additionally, as cited by the Examiner, Schwarz teaches or
suggests a "second area for a merchant" with its disclosure of querying a
supplier of goods using a GIS system to determine the supplier's delivery
zone. Schwarz ,i 28. This disclosure teaches or suggests that if the
merchant's location has changed, the GIS information responsive to the
query will change, as will as the merchant's delivery zone. See Schwarz
,i 28. We also note that Schwarz teaches or suggests the disputed limitation
with its disclosure of a delivery zone interface in which a new delivery zone
may be added. Schwarz, iJ 61, Fig. 5 ("EB ADD NEW ZONE").
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Additionally, we sustain the
Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections of claims 2-5, 7-19, and 32-39, which
depend therefrom and were not argued separately. See App. Br. 17-19; see
also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
Claim 21
Appellants argue the cited disclosures of Heimermann do not teach or
suggest "prevent the user from winning the bid to do the job," as recited in
claim 21. Instead, Appellants assert Heimermann merely discloses that
when a winning bidder "cannot complete a service bid," "[t]he market may
take some action to correct that problem." App. Br. 20.
38
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner finds
Heimermann teaches "prevent the user from winning the bid to do the job"
with its disclosure that "[i]f a successful bidder cannot fill any part of the
accepted bid on shipment terms as agreed ... part, or all of the order, as the
successful bid covers, may be canceled." Final Act. 61 (citing Heimermann
,-J,-J 266-267); see Ans. 23. Contrary to Appellants' arguments, if a
successful bidder cannot fill any part of the accepted bid, Heimermann not
only takes "some action" to correct the problem, but specifically can cancel
the order, which would effectively "prevent the user from winning the bid to
do the job." See Heimermann ,-J 267. Appellants do not present any
persuasive evidence to rebut the Examiner's findings.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Additionally, we sustain the
Examiner's pre-AIA § 103(a) rejections of claims 23-27, which depend
therefrom and were not argued separately. See App. Br. 19-20; see also
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 20, 28, 31, and 40
In the Non-Final Office Action, rejecting claims 20, 28, 31, and 40,
the Examiner took Official Notice of certain limitations. Non-Final Office
Action 44-45, 51, 52, 61 (mailed October 23, 2014) (taking Official Notice
that it is old and well known in the delivery arts that ( 1) delivery services
can include a same day delivery service and (2) a delivery job can include a
same day delivery job). Appellants did not traverse the Examiner's Official
Notice in their Response to Examiner's Non-Final Office Action. See
39
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
Appellants' Response to Non-Final Office Action 12-16 (filed April 23,
2015) ("Response to Non-Final Act."). The Examiner noted this in the Final
Office Action, and took the Officially Noticed statements to be admitted
prior art. Final Act. 25.
Now-for the first time in the Appeal Brief-Appellants attempt to
traverse the Examiner's takings of Official Notice. App. Br. 20. Appellants
assert (1) "[t]hese statements that something is old and well known are not
relevant to whether something was obvious at the time of the application;"
(2) the Examiner is employing impermissible "hindsight bias" by "using
what is old and well known as a basis for rejecting an application file dint he
[sic] past;" (3) the Examiner's Official Notice "statement is a factual finding
of the state of the art made without evidentiary support;" and (4) "[b]ecause
the Examiner may never take Official Notice of facts that constitute the state
of the art or to show specific knowledge of the prior art that may be peculiar
to a particular art, the reliance on this statement is improper." App. Br. 20.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. To adequately traverse the
Examiner's taking of Official Notice, Appellants "must specifically point
out the supposed errors in the [E]xaminer's action." MPEP § 2144.03C. If
the assertion of Official Notice is not traversed, it "is taken to be admitted
prior art." MPEP § 2144.03C. Here, Appellants failed to specifically point
out errors in the Examiner's takings of Official Notice in its Response to the
Non-Final Office Action. Response to Non-Final Act. 12-16. As the
Examiner explains in the Answer,
The Appellant had not previously argued or contested the
statement under Official Notice. In the Appellant's
Arguments/Remarks filed 23 April 2015, in response to the Non-
Final Office Action on 23 October 2014, the Appellant failed to
40
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
address the Official Notice made in said previous Non-Final
Office Action. As required by MPEP 2144.03 (C), the Appellant
is required in the response following the statement of Official
Notice to adequately traverse the statement of Official Notice.
"If applicant does not traverse the examiner's assertion of official
notice or applicant's traverse is not adequate, the examiner
should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common
knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be
admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the
examiner's assertion of official notice or that the traverse was
inadequate." MPEP 2144.03 (C). It is noted that the Examiner
recognized the Appellant's lack of traversal in paragraph 34 of
the Final Office Action mailed 11 August 2015. As such, the
Examiner indicated that the common knowledge or well-known
in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art.
Ans. 24-25.
We agree with the Examiner that Appellants did not timely or
adequately traverse the Examiner's takings of Official Notice, and thus, the
limitations at issue have been taken to be admitted prior art. Final Act. 25.
Thus, Appellants' assertion that the Examiner fails to provide evidentiary
support-after the limitations have already been taken as admitted prior
art- is without merit. Further, contrary to Appellants' assertion, each of the
Examiner's takings of Official Notice was relevant to the respective
obviousness determination because the Officially Noticed fact was being
used in combination with other teachings to show that the claim would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Final Act. 60, 66-67,
7 6; Ans. 25 ("The Examiner additionally followed this statement [ of Official
Notice] with a statement and reasoning for why it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the
teachings of Schwarz and Grigg, with that of statement of Official Notice.").
We find no error in the Examiner's approach.
41
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
We also are unpersuaded that the Examiner employed "hindsight
bias" or erred by taking Official Notice of facts "that constitute the state of
the art or ... show specific knowledge" because Appellants do not provide
any persuasive evidence or reasoning to support these assertions. It is
well-settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which
are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Pearson,
494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is not evidence).
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 20, 28,
31, and 40 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We do not reach the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 22 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, because the rejection is moot.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-21 and 23-40
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-21, 23-28,
and 31-40 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 38-40 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 21, 23, 32, and
33 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 27 and 37 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph.
42
Appeal 2018-003748
Application 13/714,813
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 29 and 30 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection with respect to
each claim on appeal, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-21 and
23-40 is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(l).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
43
Md A Page j D,ib,:e L ,::, :
............................................................................... l ...................................................................................... ~
Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under
13714813 Reexamination
Notice of References Cited
Examiner Art Unit
Page 1 of 1
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
*
Document Number Date
Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Name Classification
1 A US- 2003/0096652 A1 Siege~ et al. f\fay 22, 2003 1
B US-
C US-
D US-
E US-
F US-
G US-
H US-
I US-
J US-
K US-
L US-
M US-
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
*
Document Number Date
Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Country Name Classification
N
0
p
Q
R
s
T
NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
* Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)
u
V
w
X
*A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PT0-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No.
1
I IIIII IIIIIIII II llllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll 111111111111111111
US 20030096652Al
(19) United States
(12) Patent Application Publication
Siegel et al.
(10) Pub. No.: US 2003/0096652 Al
( 43) Pub. Date: May 22, 2003
(54) ELECTRONIC GAMING METHOD USING
CODED INPUT DATA
(75)
(73)
(21)
(22)
(51)
Inventors: Mark David Siegel, Fort Worth, TX
(US); Andrew John Riggs, Lewisville,
TX (US)
Correspondence Address:
David G Beck
Bingham Mccutchen LLP
Three Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111 (US)
Assignee: RADICA CHINA LTD.
Appl. No.:
Filed:
10/042,676
Nov. 19,2001
Publication Classification
Int. Cl.7 ..................................................... A63F 13/00
tOOO t
10\D
£o3S-
(52) U.S. Cl. ................................................................ 463/43
(57) ABSTRACT
A gaming device allows a user to scan bar codes and collect
character data corresponding to characters and character
item data corresponding to character items which affect
attributes of the characters. The gaming device allows a user
to cause simulated battles between characters. In some
embodiments, the characters belong to one of a plurality of
character groups which are at war with one another. In some
embodiments, gaming devices may communicate with other
gaming devices in order to engage in battles between
characters corresponding to data stored on the respective
gaming devices. In some embodiments, each character
within a group has a different combination of attributes,
which may include strength, magic and technology. In some
embodiments, the same bar codes which include character
data or character item data also correspond to commercial
products unrelated to characters or character items.
toos
1015
/03D
loJ5
Patent Application Publication May 22, 2003 Sheet 1 of 13 US 2003/0096652 Al
/
/ oo
Determine Code - - 1
05
, '
Correlate Code
with Feature of
Game
, r
( l 0
Process Feature ___ 1 15
According to Game
Fig. 1
Patent Application Publication May 22, 2003 Sheet 2 of 13
Item
Store
Obtain Product Identified by Bar
Code
Scan Code
Compatible
Incompatible
Monster
Fight
Fig. 2
Monster
US 2003/0096652 Al
Store
Patent Application Publication May 22, 2003 Sheet 3 of 13
J.41 -
M2-
M3-
M4-
.J.15-
M8-
M7-
M8'-
M9.-
M10-
fd11-
M12.._
M13-
M.14-
u15-
u1s-
·M17- -
Mt8--
M19.-
M20-
M21-
M22-
MZl-
M24-
M25-
M2'6-
M27-
M28-
1,129-
1,130-
M31-
M32-
M33-
M34'-
M35-
M36-
1,137-
M38"--
M3S-
M.CO-
M41-
M4:2- ~
I~ I
<9> <$> <$>
M"3-
M"4.-
M45-
M"'6-
Mt47-
M48-
M"9-
M&J-
M51-
M52-
M~-
M54-
M55-
M~-
M57-
M58-
M59-
MS0-
M61-
M62-
M83'.-
M64·-
M65-
M66.-
M67-
M68-
M69-
M70-
M71-
M72-
M73-
M74-
M75-
M75-
M71-
M7S-
M79.-
Mao-
M81.-
M82-
MS3-
M84-
l't,185_
Maa-
M87 .....
Maa-
Mas-
M90-
M91-
MS2-
MS3-
MS4-
M95-
M96-
M97-
M98-
US 2003/0096652 Al
M99._
M100-
Mt0f-
M102-
M103-
M104-
M105-
M10S-
M107-
M108-
M109·-
M110-
M111 -
M112-
M113-
M114-
M115-
M116-
M117-
M11S-
M119,_
M120--
M12'f'-
M122-
M123-
M124·-
M125..-
M126~
Patent Application Publication May 22, 2003 Sheet 4 of 13 US 2003/0096652 Al
~
m1
[j1J
m2
~
m~
m4
[I]
MS
Ii
m6
~
Ml
[;J
M8
R
M9
Patent Application Publication May 22, 2003 Sheet 5 of 13 US 2003/0096652 Al
11
12
13
505 ~G~ s,.5
r----~1
Arr'(trme
14
115·
B " 18 i9
110
H1
112
113
11~
115
116
117
510
118
119'
.l20
121
(no dau rut1'1dl<1J1S)
Patent Application Publication May 22, 2003 Sheet 6 of 13
"Try again" ~15
sequence
Some data No data
read read
Afl data ,read
'7,).0 I I
Stop sequence I ~:,()
"Item acquired" Item Monster
sequence
l, :,5'
~(p5
Monster explodes
Yes No
No
Battle sequence
Stop
1,,5S-
Fig. 6
US 2003/0096652 Al
Stop sequence
CDJS-
~'-{O
"Monster acquired"
sequence
Yes
"Compatible monster
acquired" sequence
Patent Application Publication May 22, 2003 Sheet 7 of 13 US 2003/0096652 Al
Play Initial sequence ,oS
Select team ,10
-,~P
Opponent
Opponent's tum
Player
Determine result
rJ.O
"i1S"
,J..5'
Attack Select new
monster
Select type of
attack Yes
1;6
Defeat sequence
and stop
Play KO
sequence Yes -,qv
KO
Miss
750
1"10
Determine Result
No
Fig. 7
Patent Application Publication May 22, 2003 Sheet 8 of 13 US 2003/0096652 Al
/
I
Patent Application Publication May 22, 2003 Sheet 9 of 13 US 2003/0096652 Al
Display Speaker(s)
! 1----- -
I
I Communication I
I port
1
~ ~~~_,
I
---i---'
Controller Sensor
'
q 2) 'O
Input device(s) Storage device(s)
O]OD j
Fig. 9
Patent Application Publication May 22, 2003 Sheet 10 of 13 US 2003/0096652 Al
(000
JO 15
lOlD /D3D
JoJS
Patent Application Publication May 22, 2003 Sheet 11 of 13 US 2003/0096652 Al
DOD
f=;j· 11
( J JE:
I JJ.Cl
--[ lJ~
JI 3-0
/ If D
Patent Application Publication May 22, 2003 Sheet 12 of 13
0
0
0
US 2003/0096652 Al
Patent Application Publication May 22, 2003 Sheet 13 of 13 US 2003/0096652 Al
----- I=? j,_ 'O
\
3-8000 57980 ~
~I II
?~a!s)
~~o5 ~--------- J:::,15"
Referenc& numbers tor spec
MONSTER OR ITEM?
To determine if the scan creates a monster or an Hem,· check the UPC's first Hem number.
I ~~; Item number 1
6-9
I C:)llects
A Monster
An Item
f; 'J· 13
US 2003/0096652 Al
ELECTRONIC GAMING METHOD USING CODED
INPUT DATA
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0001] This application relates generally to electronic
gaming devices and is particularly directed to hand-held
gaming devices for simulating battle between virtual crea-
tures.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0002] Games which involve battles between imaginary
creatures have become very popular. Such games include
''Dungeons and Dragons," in which players take on the
identity of characters which inhabit a universe similar to that
depicted in J. R. R. Tolkein's Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Players may assume the identity of human or non-human
characters with a variety of attributes such as intelligence,
strength, speed, magic, dexterity, etc.
[0003] In general, some attributes of characters will have
advantages over certain attributes but disadvantages with
respect to other attributes. For example, a game may give an
advantage to strength over dexterity, to dexterity over speed
and to speed over strength. Such a relationship is based upon
the familiar "rock, paper, scissors" game. In many games, an
attribute v,,ill be assigned a number according to the level of
the attribute. For example, a character having a strength
value of 3 would be weaker than a character with a strength
value of 5.
[0004] In order to make the game more interesting, the
outcome of a battle will depend to a certain extent on chance.
For example, the outcome of a Dungeon and Dragons battle
is determined by a character's attributes and by the roll of a
die. If a character survives a battle, it gains experience points
which will increase its chances of further survival.
[0005] Commonly, games are conducted under the direc-
tion of a "dungeon master" who can interpret complex rules
and determine the outcome of battles with reference to a
series of guide books which have been published for this
purpose.
[0006] In recent years, similar games have been intro-
duced for simulated battle in video arcades, on personal
computers and on hand-held gaming devices. Many such
games include characters and/or attributes similar to those of
Dungeons and Dragons. However, in these electronic
embodiments, rules stored in a memory take the place of
guide books and a processor takes the place of the dungeon
master.
[0007] Electronic versions of battle games are advanta-
geous in that they do not require an experienced player's
participation and allow games to be played at a faster pace
which is more exciting to the participants. In addition,
players with hand-held devices or personal computers may
battle against other players' characters by transmitting sig-
nals between the devices over a cable or over a network. An
individual player may also stage battles against the proces-
sor(s) in the player's own device.
[0008] In some such games, data regarding variolL5 char-
acters may be scanned or otherwise input. For example,
Japanese Patent Publication No. 05-30475, entitled "Card
Game Device," discloses a gaming device with a bar code
1
May 22, 2003
reader for scanning data from gaming cards and a memory
for storing these data. The gaming cards are made for use
with the gaming device and include "character cards" for
fighting, weapon cards, defense tool cards and other item
cards for "improving the surviving state." The device
includes a microcomputer for staging a mock battle and for
making a decision as to which character will be the "offense
side" and which will be the "defense side" during battle.
However, the player will be competing against a known
group of characters, the attributes of which are known in
advance.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0009] According to some embodiments of the present
invention, a gaming device includes: a scanner for scanning
a bar code corresponding to a product identification; a
processor for receiving the bar code from the scanner, for
translating the bar code to game data and for determining
whether the game data are compatible game data; and a
storage medium for storing compatible game data. The game
data may include character data. In some embodiments, each
character belongs to a particular group. The game data may
also include item data for describing items used by charac-
ters in a game.
[0010] In some embodiments of the present invention, a
gaming device includes: a simulated scanner which emits a
light; a pressure sensitive switch proximate the simulated
scanner; a random number generator which generates a code
when activated by the pressure sensitive switch; and a
processor for correlating the code with a feature of a game.
[0011] In other embodiments of the present invention, a
gaming device includes: a case small enough to be held in
a single hand of a user; a scanner disposed on a first side of
the case, the scanner comprising at least one light-emitting
diode configured to read bar codes; a controller disposed
within the case, wherein said controller correlates read bar
codes to one of a plurality of game data associated with a
game; a storage device within the case for storing a set of
rules for the game and for storing at least a portion of said
plurality of game data; and a coupling device for coupling
the gaming device with a second gaming device, the cou-
pling device comprising a transmitter and a receiver.
[0012] In still other embodiments of the present invention,
a gaming device includes: a scanner for scanning a product
identification number of a Universal Product Code, the
primary meaning of the product identification number being
the identification of a commercial product; processing
means for receiving the bar code from the scanner, for
assigning a secondary meaning to the portion of the code,
the secondary meaning corresponding with a monster
belonging to one of a plurality of tribes and for determining
whether the monster belongs to a specific tribe of said
plurality of tribes, the specific tribe associated with the
gaming device; a storage device within the case for storing
a set of rules for the game and for storing monster data for
monsters belonging to the specific tribe; and a coupling
device for coupling the gaming device with a second gaming
device, the coupling device comprising a transmitter, a
receiver, a first tab configured to fit into a first slot of a
second gaming device and a second slot configured to
receive a second tab of the second gaming device.
[0013] Some embodiments of the present invention
include a gaming program stored in a storage medium of a
US 2003/0096652 Al
gaming device, wherein the gaming program controls the
gaming device to perform the steps of: inputting at least a
portion of a code, the primary meaning of the code being the
identification of a commercial product; and assigning a
secondary meaning to the portion of the code, the secondary
meaning being a feature of a game.
[0014) Other embodiments of the present invention
involve a gaming program stored in a storage medium of a
gaming device, wherein the gaming program controls the
gaming device to perform the steps of: scanning a product
identification number of a Universal Product Code, the
primary meaning of the product identification number being
the identification of a commercial product; assigning a
secondary meaning to the portion of the code, the secondary
meaning corresponding with a monster belonging to one of
a plurality of tribes; and determining whether the monster
belongs to a specific tribe of said plurality of tribes, the
specific tribe associated with the gaming device.
[0015) Certain embodiments of the present invention
include a gaming program stored in a storage medium of a
gaming device, wherein the gaming program controls the
gaming device to perform the steps of: inputting a portion of
a code identifying a commercial product; correlating a game
character with the portion of the code; and staging a battle
involving the game character according to a pre-defined set
of game rules stored v-rithin the gaming device.
[0016) Other embodiments of the present invention
involve a gaming method which includes the steps of: using
a sensor of a gaming device to input a portion of a code
having a primary meaning assigned by the Uniform Code
Council; determining a secondary meaning for the portion of
the code; determining whether the secondary meaning cor-
responds to a compatible game feature; and storing the
compatible game feature.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0017) FIG. 1 is a flow chart which provides a high-level
overview of various embodiments of the present invention.
[0018) FIG. 2 is a flow chart which provides an overview
of one embodiment of a game according to the present
invention.
[0019) FIG. 3 illustrates the organization of gaming char-
acters according to one embodiment of the present inven-
tion.
[0020) FIG. 4 depicts illustrative gaming characters
a=ording to one embodiment of the present invention.
[0021) FIG. 5 illustrates the organization of items accord-
ing to one embodiment of the present invention.
[0022) FIG. 6 is a flow chart which illustrates a process of
acquiring characters and item data according to one embodi-
ment of the present invention.
[0023) FIG. 7 is a flow chart which illustrates a method of
simulating a battle according to one embodiment of the
present invention.
[0024) FIG. 8 is a perspective view of one embodiment of
a gaming device according to the present invention.
[0025) FIG. 9 is a block diagram which illustrates a
generalized view of the control system of a gaming device
a=ording to some embodiments of the present invention.
2
May 22, 2003
[0026) FIG. 10 is a top view of a second embodiment of
a gaming device according to the present invention.
[0027) FIG. 11 is an end view of the second embodiment
of a gaming device according to the present invention.
[0028) FIG. 12 is a side view of the second embodiment
of a gaming device according to the present invention.
[0029) FIG. 13 illustrates the correlation between a UPC
code for an arbitrary product, monster data and item data
according to one embodiment of the present invention.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SPECIFIC
EMBODIMENTS
[0030) I. Game Overview
[0031) Many embodiments of the present invention
include games involving the collection of items or characters
which are represented by a code. Some such games involve
a treasure hunt or similar games in which players attempt to
collect items or characters featured in the game. Such items
or characters may be referred to herein as "game data," as
"features" of the game or the like. Other games involve
fighting between characters of the game.
[0032) Many of these games involve an element of sur-
prise which is not found in prior art games. In some such
games, a player v-rill not know in advance which feature will
correspond with a particular code. Only after a user has input
the code will the user know whether a desirable or an
undesirable feature has been obtained. In some embodi-
ments of the present invention, the codes are derived from
bar codes or other codes which were created to serve a
purpose which is entirely different from the purpose of the
game. For example, in some games, the codes are used to
identify products which are unrelated to the game. However,
when these codes are input (for example, by scanning a bar
code), a user will receive an unknown feature of the game,
which may be a desirable or an undesirable feature.
[0033) In some embodiments, an element of surprise will
result from a random number generator associated with a
gaming device. When the user activates the random number
generator, it will generate a code which corresponds to an
unpredictable feature. In some embodiments, the random
number generator is activated by a control on a gaming
device. In some such embodiments, the control is a pressure
sensitive switch, such as a dip switch, and the random
number is activated when the switch is engaged. In some of
these embodiments, the switch is connected to a red light
which appears to be a scanner and the switch is activated
when a user goes through the motions of scanning a code. In
alternative embodiments, the user inputs a code and a
random number generator correlates the input code v-rith a
feature in an unpredictable way.
[0034) Some embodiments can involve various types of
collaboration between players. For example, in some
embodiments a code will correspond with a certain feature.
After one player learns that the code corresponds with, for
example, a desirable item, that player may share this infor-
mation with another player. Such information could be
freely given or could be exchanged for other desirable
information. In some embodiments of the game, a first
player who has stored information regarding a character or
item can share the information directly with a second player
US 2003/0096652 Al
by transferring data from the first player's device to the
second player's device. Such a data transfer could take place
by directly coupling the devices, by a wireless system such
as an infra-red wireless system, by linking the devices with
a cable, by local or remote wireless data transfer, via a public
or private telephone network, via the Internet or other
computer network, etc.
[0035] In some embodiments, players exchange informa-
tion or data for other information or data as a strategic
component of playing the game. For example, players can
form groups which compete against other groups. Players
within a particular group will share all advantageous infor-
mation or data with other members of their group. Players
may also decide to trade information or data with members
of competing groups.
[0036] Players may play some games alone or against
other players. In the single-player modes of some games,
players may compete against one or more processors in a
gaming device according to gaming programs accessible to
the processors. In other games, a single player may attempt
to collect certain items or characters in as little time as
possible.
[0037] Players may compete directly against other players
in many games. For example, players may exchange data
between 2 or more devices for head-to-head play. This data
exchange may be accomplished, for example, by directly
coupling gaming devices, by linking the devices with a
cable, by local or remote wireless data transfer or other
means. Some games are installed on a personal computer or
other devices which allow players to compete against one
another via communication over a public or private tele-
phone network, over the Internet or other computer network,
etc.
[0038] II. Playing The Games
[0039] Overview
[0040] FIG. 1 is a flow chart which illustrates a general-
ized process of playing various games according to the
present invention. In step 105, a code is determined. In step
110, the code is correlated with a feature of a game. In step
115, the feature is used in the game.
[0041] According to some embodiments of the present
invention, step 105 includes the reception of a code by a
gaming device. In some embodiments, the code is received
as a result of scanning a bar code. In some embodiments, the
code is received in the form of a signal from a radio
frequency identification ("RFID") label, such as a Texas
Instruments Smart Labelâ„¢. In other embodiments, the code
is received in a variety of ways, including key entry, via data
transfer from another gaming device, and via downloading
from a network, a personal computer, the Internet, an audio
device, a video device and a variety of other sources.
[0042] According to some embodiments of the present
invention, step 105 includes the step of generating a code.
For example, in some embodiments a random number
generator generates a code. Such a random number genera-
tor may include a processor which is executing any random
number generation program known in the art.
[0043] In some embodiments, step 110 includes the step of
determining a previously-defined correlation between a fea-
ture of a game and a code. In some such embodiments, step
3
May 22, 2003
110 includes the step of accessing a memory which includes
correlations between game features and codes. Such corre-
lations may be stored, for example, in a "look-up table."
[0044] In other embodiments, there is no previously-
defined correlation between a feature of a game and a code,
and step 110 includes the step of assigning a feature of a
game to a received code. According to some such embodi-
ments, features are randomly assigned to the code. Accord-
ing to other embodiments, features are assigned to a code
depending on an action by the user of a gaming device. For
example, in some embodiments a feature is assigned
depending on how long an analog control has been activated.
In other embodiments, a feature is assigned depending on a
prior sequence of commands from the user.
[0045] In step 115, a character or item is processed accord-
ing to the game currently being played. In many games, step
115 includes the step of identifying the feature. In some
games, step 115 includes the step of storing a feature. Some
features may be processed differently from other features
according to the type of feature and the particular game
involved. For example, the feature may be stored if it is a
desirable feature and deleted if it is an undesirable feature.
In some games, a feature may be stored if it is an item or a
particular type of character, but may not be stored if it is
another type of character.
[0046] SKANNERZTM Game
[0047] One embodiment of the present invention involves
a game in which the players scan bar codes of arbitrary
products to collect data corresponding to monsters or items.
According to the story underlying this game, the monsters
belong to 3 warring tribes from the planet Kaos. The
monsters had developed a technology which transformed
monsters into particles called "skannerz." Kaos exploded
and scattered the monster's skannerz particles into space.
Some of these particles rained down upon the Earth and
settled into the bar codes of commercial products.
[0048] An Earthling named "Flux" discovered the mon-
ster's particles lurking in bar codes and made a device for
scanning the codes and collecting the monsters. He also
learned that if all the monsters of a tribe are collected in a
single device, the monsters will be able to combine their
energy and leave Earth. However, only monsters from a
single tribe may be collected in any one device. Therefore,
Flux created 3 devices, one for each tribe.
[0049] FIG. 2 is a flow chart which illustrates a method of
playing this game. In step 205, a user obtains a product
bearing a UPC bar code. In one preferred embodiment, the
bar code described in step 205 is a UPC code which
identifies an arbitrary commercial product. For example, the
UPC code could be attached to a garment, a household
product from a grocery store, a gardening implement, or any
other product. In other embodiments, the product is identi-
fied by an RFID label, as described above.
[0050] In step 210, the user scans the code. In some
embodiments, a scanner within a gaming device scans the
UPC code. In other embodiments, an external scanner scans
the UPC code and transmits; data to a gaming device or
another device, such as a personal computer, which is used
for playing a game.
[0051] In step 215, the gaming device determines whether
the UPC code corresponds to an item, a compatible monster
US 2003/0096652 Al
or an incompatible monster. A compatible monster is a
monster belonging to the tribe for which data may be stored
on the gaming device. Any other monster is an incompatible
monster. Items affect the attributes of a monster. For
example, some items are weapons which give a monster an
advantage in battle. Potions are items which can provide an
advantage or a disadvantage, but the user will not know
which until the potion is used. The players generally do not
know in advance which monster or item will correspond
with a product's UPC code.
[0052] If the bar code corresponds to an item, the gaming
device stores the item in step 220. If the bar code corre-
sponds to a monster which is compatible with the device, in
step 225 the gaming device stores the monster. If the bar
code corresponds to a monster which is not compatible with
the device, the gaming device stages a battle with the
monster in step 230.
[0053] FIG. 3 is a diagram which illustrates the tribes of
monsters from Kaos and the classes of monsters in each
tribe. According to this embodiment, there are 3 tribes of
monsters, 3 classes within each tribe and 14 monsters in
each class. In other embodiments, various groupings of
characters and attributes are used. In the present embodi-
ment, each monster has a different appearance, a different
name and different attributes.
[0054] As noted in FIG. 3, the 3 classes of monsters in
each tribe are magic, technology and power. As in the game
of "rock, paper, scissors," each class has a natural advantage
or disadvantage against another class. In this embodiment,
"power" corresponds to "rock,""magic" corresponds to
"paper" and "tech" corresponds to "scissors."
[0055] Accordingly, monsters in the power class have an
advantage over monsters in the technology cla<;s and a
disadvantage with respect to monsters in the magic class.
Monsters in the magic class have a disadvantage with
respect to monsters in the technology class.
[0056] In one preferred embodiment, these relative advan-
tages and disadvantages are manifested by adjusting the
damage which is caused by a monster in combat. For
example, when a monster in the power class attacks a
monster in the technology class, it causes relatively more
damage than the same monster causes when attacking
another monster in the power class. On the other hand, when
a monster in the power class attacks a monster in the magic
class, it causes relatively less damage than the same monster
causes when attacking another monster in the power class.
[0057] Monsters have various attributes, including an
unique name and appearance. Some attributes are variable
and are determined by a monster's level. Monsters at higher
levels have correspondingly higher levels of certain desir-
able attributes such as hit points, defense rating, speed and
attack rating.
[0058] Hit points indicate how much damage a monster
can withstand before being knocked out. In one embodi-
ment, a monster begins with 10 hit points. When a monster's
hit points reach 0, the monster is knocked out. In one
embodiment, a monster which is knocked out cannot be
selected for battle until it is healed. One method of healing
a monster is to enter a code for healing, e.g., by scanning a
UPC which is encoded for healing.
4
May 22, 2003
[0059] A defense rating determines a monster's likelihood
of being hit in battle. Higher-level opponents are more likely
to be able to hit a monster with the same defense rating. For
example, in one embodiment a monster with a defense rating
of 1 has an 80% chance of being hit by an attacking Level
1 opponent, a 90% chance of being hit by an attacking Level
2 opponent and a 100% chance of being hit by an attacking
Level 3 opponent.
[0060] Speed indicates a monster's quickness to respond.
In some embodiments, speed is also used to determine which
monster goes first in battle.
[0061] An attack rating indicates how much damage a
monster calL<;es when attacking. The attack rating and other
attributes can be modified by items, as set forth in more
detail with reference to FIG. 5, and also by gaining expe-
rience points in battle.
[0062] For each battle a monster wins, it is awarded
experience points based on the level of the defeated oppo-
nent. In one embodiment, each monster begins with 0
experience points, then gains 5 experience points for defeat-
ing a Level 1 monster, 6 experience points for defeating a
Level 2 monster and 7 experience points for defeating a
Level 3 monster. In one embodiment, a monster with 0
through 100 experience points is in Level 1, with 101
through 299 experience points is in Level 2 and with 300 or
more experience points is in Level 3.
[0063] FIG. 4 illustrates monsters Ml through M9 accord-
ing to one embodiment of the SKANNERZTM game. In this
embodiment, the monsters depicted in FIG. 4 are the first 9
monsters of the magic class of Tribe 1.
[0064] As shown in FIG. 5, in one embodiment of the
game, items fall into 3 general categories depending on
when the items may be used. For example, items 505 may
be used before battle. Items n, I2 and I3 may only be used
by monsters in the magic class. Item n is the Ring of Speed,
which increases the speed of a monster. Item I2 is the Amulet
of Protection, which increases the defensive capability of a
monster. Item I3 is the Crystal Ball, which enhances the next
attack. Items I4 through I6 correspond to items n through
I3, except that items I4 through I6 may only be used by
monsters in the technology class. Similarly, items I7 through
I9 correspond to items n through 13, except that items I7
through I9 may only be used by monsters in the power class.
[0065] Items 510 are used during battle. Here, items no
through n3 may be used only by monsters in the magic
class. Item no is a wand which shoots a magic missile,
thereby increasing the amount of damage caused by an
attack. Item Ill is a staff which discharges lightning and
increases the amount of damage caused by an attack. Item
n2 is a sleeping spell which causes an opponent to lose a
turn. Item n3 is a spell which causes an opponent to lose a
random item. Items n4 through 117 parallel the functions of
items no through n3, but the former may only be used by
monsters in the technology class. Similarly, items ns
through I21 parallel the functions of items no through I13,
but the former may only be used by monsters in the power
class.
[0066] Items 515 may be used at any time and by monsters
of any class. In this embodiment, items 515 are all potions
which may be used only once. Potions may cause beneficial
or harmful effects. For example, items I22 and I24 of this
US 2003/0096652 Al
embodiment add "hit points" to a monster, thereby increas-
ing its chances of survival during battle. On the other hand,
items 123 and 125 take away hit points from a monster,
thereby decreasing the monster's chances of survival during
battle.
[0067] In some embodiments, items are further subdivided
into items which may be used by a monster an unlimited
number of times and items which only may be used a limited
number of times. For example, in one embodiment, weapons
which cause an opponent to lose a turn may only be used
once.
[0068] FIG. 6 is a flow chart which illustrates a method of
acquiring input data according to one embodiment of the
present invention. In step 605, a bar code is scanned. If the
scanner reads some data but not the entire bar code, the
method proceeds to step 610 and it is determined whether
the user has tried to scan the code more than a predetermined
number of times. If not, the user is prompted to try again in
step 615. If so, in step 620 a stopping sequence is displayed
and the scanning operation is suspended. If enough data are
read in step 605, the game proceeds to step 630 and the data
are interpreted. In some embodiments, if no data are read on
the first scanning attempt, the method proceeds to step 625,
a stopping sequence is displayed and the scanning operation
is suspended.
[0069] In some preferred embodiments, after the bar code
is scanned a graphic is displayed and sounds are produced
which simulate a heart monitor recording a heartbeat. The
amplitude of the heart beat recorded on the monitor roughly
corresponds with the amount of data received during the
scan. For example, in step 610, a simulated weak heart beat
is displayed and a soft tone is played; in step 630, a strong
heart beat is displayed and a louder tone is played; and in
step 625, a "flat line" indicating no heart beat is displayed
and a continuous tone is played. In some embodiments, the
same effect is produced at step 620.
[0070] In step 630, it is determined whether the bar code
data correspond with a monster or a monster item. If the data
correspond with a monster item, the data are stored and an
"item acquired" sequence is displayed in step 635. In various
embodiments, this sequence may simply be a confirmation
that the item will be stored or may include an image and/or
a description of the item.
[0071] If the data correspond with a monster, in step 640
some form of "monster acquired" sequence is played and a
determination is made in step 645 as to whether or not the
monster is compatible with the gaming device. For example,
in some embodiments a voice is played which states, "Mon-
ster acquired!" or the like. If the monster is compatible, a
"compatible monster" indication is given and the corre-
sponding monster data are stored in step 650. In some
embodiments, a recorded voice states, "Monster is yours!"
or makes a similar statement. Then, the sequence ends in
step 655.
[0072] If the monster is not compatible, the game proceeds
to step 660. In some embodiments, an alarm sounds and a
siren or similar graphic is displayed. In some embodiments,
a voice states, "Enemy monster acquired!" or the like. In
some embodiments, if the incompatible monster has been
scanned for the first time, the monster will explode in step
665 and the process will terminate in step 655.
5
May 22, 2003
[0073] In other embodiments, even if the incompatible
monster has been scanned only once, the process continues
to step 670 and a simulated battle with the incompatible
monster will ensue. In some embodiments, an incompatible
monster ,vill only be fought if a memory accessible to the
gaming device already contains a threshold number of
monsters, e.g., 3 monsters. In some embodiments, the
incompatible monster will spawn additional monsters which
will also engage in battle. After the battle is over, the process
continues to step 655 and stops.
[0074] FIG. 7 illustrates a battle sequence according to
some embodiments of the present invention. This battle
sequence could correspond, for example, either to head-to-
head battle against one or more opponents or to a single
player's battle against a program executed by the player's
gaming device. Accordingly, the term "opponent" in FIG. 7
refers to either one or more human or computer opponents.
[0075] In step 705, an initial sequence is played. This
sequence depends on the circumstances arising at this
moment of the game. For example, if an incompatible
monster has been input, in some embodiments the sequence
displays and plays the word "BATILE!" If a player has
chosen to do battle against the gaming device or against one
or more opponents, a sequence appropriate for this selection
is played. For example, if the player has chosen to battle
another player's monsters, in some embodiments the initial
sequence includes a prompt for the player to indicate a mode
of communication between the player's gaming device and
one or more other devices, which may be gaming devices,
personal computers, etc.
[0076] In step 710, the player is prompted to determine
which of the player's monsters will do battle. In step 715, it
is determined whether the player or the opponent will go
first. This determination could be made based upon the result
of prior battles, upon a particular attribute of one of the
battling monsters, upon an item possessed by one of the
monsters, upon an outcome of random number generation
by a controller, or in any other convenient fashion.
[0077] When the player goes first, the player is prompted
to choose between attacking, using an item, or switching the
monster currently battling on the player's team. Some mon-
sters ,vill have more than one possible type of attack.
Therefore, if the player decides to attack, in step 725 the
player is prompted to select the type of attack.
[0078] In step 730, it is determined whether the attack hit,
missed or knocked out the opponent. If the attack knocked
out the opponent, a KO sequence is played in step 735, then
in step 740 it is determined whether all of the opponent's
monsters have been knocked out. When all of the opponent's
monsters have been knocked out, in step 745 a victory
sequence is played and the battle ends. If all of the oppo-
nent's monsters have not been knocked out, the battle
sequence proceeds to step 760 and it is the opponent's turn.
[0079] The steps indicated in FIG. 7 are from the per-
spective of a single player who is viewing a single device.
Therefore, in step 740, if the player is battling the monsters
of a human opponent, a defeat sequence would also be
displayed to the opponent.
[0080] In some embodiments, the monsters can be killed.
However, in the battle sequence depicted in FIG. 7, mon-
sters can only be knocked out, then may be revived by each
US 2003/0096652 Al
contestant. One method of reviving a monster is to select
"Heal" from a menu, select a monster to be healed, then scan
a bar code which will revive the monster.
[0081] If the player's attack hit the opponent's monster but
did not knock it out, the damage caused by the attack will be
evaluated and displayed in step 750. In many embodiments,
the attack will be evaluated based on the number of hit
points which the opponent's monster possessed prior to and
after the attack. As noted above, the strength of an attack will
depend on various factors, including but not limited to the
classes of monsters doing battle, the level of each monster
and the effect of items used by the attacking monster. The
battle sequence then proceeds to step 760, the opponent's
turn. Similarly, when the player's attack misses, the game
proceeds to step 760.
[0082] When the player chooses ''item" when prompted in
step 720, in step 765 the player will select which item to use.
In step 770, it is determined whether the item knocked out
the opponent's monster. If so, the game proceeds to step 735
and the KO sequence is played. If not, the effect of the item
is displayed and the game proceeds to step 760.
[0083] If the player chooses ''switch" in step 720, the
player is prompted to select a new monster in step 775. In
this embodiment, when the player selects a new monster
instead of attacking, the player loses a turn and the game
proceeds to step 760.
[0084] In step 760, the opponent is presented with the
same choices that have been described above for the player
with respect to steps 720, 725, 765 and 775. In step 780, a
result will be determined and displayed, according to the
choice made by the opponent. For example, an audio clip
may be played and a graphic displayed indicating that the
player's monster has been hit, has been missed, has lost a
certain number of hit points and/or has been knocked out. In
step 785, it is determined whether all of the player's mon-
sters have been knocked out. If all of the player's monsters
have not been knocked out, the game proceeds to step 720
and it is the player's turn. If all of the player's monsters have
been knocked out, in step 790 a defeat sequence will be
played to the player and the game will end. If the opponent
is a human opponent, the opponent's gaming device will
play a victory sequence.
[0085] III. Gaming Devices
[0086] FIG. 8 illustrates one embodiment of gaming
device 800 according to the present invention. Display 805
includes a screen such as a liquid crystal display for dis-
playing graphics, menus, etc., according to the selections of
a user from controls 810 and to the particular game being
played.
[0087] In this embodiment, controls 810 include hat but-
ton 815 and button zones 820 and 825. Gaming device 800
also features sensor 860, speaker 865 and communication
port 870.
[0088] Hat button 815 allows a player to move a cursor or
similar element to various positions within display 805 in
order to scroll through a menu or otherwise interact with
gaming device 800. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 8, hat
button 815 allows the user to move a cursor up, down, left
or right. In other embodiments, hat button 815 is replaced by
a multivalue generator, often referred to as a thumb ball
6
May 22, 2003
control, and can be an analog multi-axis controller, a pro-
portional multi-axis controller or a similar device. The
multivalue generator can use Hall effect sensors, optical
sensors, or other types of sensors. In alternative embodi-
ments, hat button 815 is replaced by a conventional four
switch digital pad that generates or interrupts a signal when
a contact is closed or opened and can be configured to
generate only four primary directions or generate four
primary directions plus four intermediate directions.
[0089] Preferably, button zones 820 and 825 include digi-
tal buttons. Button zones 820 and/or 825 may include one or
more analog buttons which output a value corresponding to
the amount of force applied by the user or the length of time
the button is depressed by the user. Preferably, such analog
buttons use force sensitive resistors and elastomeric mate-
rials as are well known in the art.
[0090] Buttons 830 through 855 may be assigned in vari-
ous ways. In one embodiment, button 830 is an on/off
button, button 835 is a "back" button which takes a user to
a previous screen or selection, button 845 is an "enter"
button for making a selection from a choice shown on
display 805, button 850 controls sensor 860 and buttons 840
and 855 are used for interactive play during a game, e.g.,
during a battle.
[0091] Sensor 860 allows data to be input for use in a
game or otherwise. In one embodiment, sensor 860 is a bar
code reader. In an alternative embodiment, sensor 860 is a
radio frequency sensor for detecting input from RFID labels.
[0092] Speaker 865 provides sound effects to the user in
order to create a more exciting gaming experience. For
example, in one embodiment, speaker 865 provides the
sounds described above with reference to FIGS. 6 and 7.
[0093] Communication port 870 allows data to be trans-
ferred to or from gaming device 800. For example, com-
munication port 870 allows gaming device 800 to transmit
signals to and from another gaming device, a personal
computer, or another device. Depending on the configura-
tion of communication port 870, these transmissions may be
sent and received via direct coupling of one gaming device
with another, via twin-lead wires, via coaxial cable, via a
wireless connection (for example, an infrared wireless con-
nection) via a network such as a telephone network or via
other means known in the art. In some embodiments,
gaming device 800 is coupled to an opponent's gaming
device via communication port 870 for head-to-head play
against the opponent, as described above.
[0094] FIG. 9 depicts a simplified version of control
system 900 for various gaming devices according to the
present invention, such as gaming device 800. At the heart
of control system 900 is controller 905, which typically
includes one or more processors and related hardware and
firmware (for example, BIOS and a CMOS chip) and is
normally controlled by a software program which is cus-
tomized for a particular game. Such a game program may
reside, for example, on storage device 910.
[0095] Controller 905 controls display 915 and speaker
935 according to input from various sources, including the
game program, instructions from a user via input devices
920, signals from sensor 925 and signals from optional
communication port 930. For example, controller 905 con-
trols display 915 and speaker 935 according to input from
US 2003/0096652 Al
sensor 925 and a gaming program when executing the data
input procedure described with reference to FIG. 6. Con-
troller 905 controls display 915 and speaker 935 according
to input from communication port 930, instructions from
input devices 920 and instructions from a gaming program
when executing the battle sequences described with refer-
ence to FIG. 7.
[0096) Storage device 910 may be any storage device
which is convenient for the particular embodiment. For
example, for hand-held gaming devices storage device 910
preferably includes one or more solid state memory devices
such as RAM chips. In some embodiments, storage device
910 is part of controller 905.
[0097) Display 915 may be any convenient display such as
an LCD screen. In one embodiment, display 915 corre-
sponds to display 805 of gaming device 800. Input devices
920 may include a key pad, a mouse, a joy stick, a steering
wheel, or controls such as controls 810 of gaming device
810.
[0098) Sensor 925 corresponds with sensor 860 of gaming
device 800 and in one embodiment includes a bar code
reader. In an alternative embodiment, sensor 925 is a radio
frequency sensor for detecting input from RFID labels.
[0099) FIG. 10 illustrates an embodiment of gaming
device 1000, which includes screen 1005 for displaying
monsters, menus and other information. In this embodiment,
directional pad 1010 is a four-way button which allows a
user to scroll through objects depicted on screen 1005, such
as menus, stored monsters and stored items.
[0100) On/A button 1015 allows a user to turn on the
controller and to make selections: on/A button 1015 pro-
vides some of the functions of an "enter" key. When user
selects a monster, on/ A button 1015 allows a user to display
information about the monster. B button 1020 permits a user
to back out of any selection to a previous screen.
[0101) When a user has selected a monster and then
pressed pan button 1025, directional pad 1010 allows a user
to pan across a monster pictured in screen 1005.
[0102) Reset button 1030 resets the controller to its origi-
nal settings. In some embodiments, pressing reset button
1030 causes all monster and item data to be erased.
[0103) In one embodiment, gaming device 1000 is one of
3 gaming devices used in the SKANNERZâ„¢ game for
collecting monsters and staging battles between monsters.
According to one such embodiment, gaming device 1000
features logo 1035 and is colored blue. In various embodi-
ments, the exterior of gaming device 1000 is made of a range
of materials, including ABS plastic, polycarbonate and vari-
ous metals.
[0104) In other embodiments, there are different numbers
of gaming devices and gaming devices v-rith different con-
figurations. Although it is not necessary for the gaming
devices to include colors or logos to identify them with a
group of characters, such clear means of identification are
advantageous, particularly for younger players or other
players with limited reading ability.
[0105) FIG. 11 is an end view of gaming device 1000
which illustrates coupling device 1105 and scanning port
7
May 22, 2003
1140. In this view, the controls described with reference to
FIG. 10 are on the left side of gaming device 1000.
[0106) In this embodiment, coupling device 1105 includes
tab 1110, slot 1115 and spring-loaded pressure contacts
1120, 1125 and 1130. Tab 1110 of gaming device 1000 is
configured to fit into slot 1115 of a second gaming device.
When gaming device 1000 is coupled to a second gaming
device, contact 1120 transmits data to the second device,
contact 1125 is a ground and contact 1130 receives data from
the second device.
[0107) In other embodiments, a variety of devices are used
to allow a user to interact with another user for battling, for
other types of competition or for collaboration with another
user. For example, hand-held devices may communicate via
a cable, a wireless network, a public or private telephone
network, the Internet, or via local infra-red transmission and
reception. Other embodiments include a scanning device
used as a peripheral to a personal computer, which may then
be networked with another personal computer via any
known means, for example, a local area network, wide area
network, the Internet, etc. Scanned data may be stored on a
memory accessible to the personal computer.
[0108) Scanning port 1140 allows a user to scan data from
bar codes. As described above, in one embodiment the bar
codes are UPC codes for commercial products unrelated to
the game and a controller correlates these data to monster
data and monster item data. In one preferred embodiment, an
economical version of scanning port 1140 includes a light
sensor and 2 light-emitting diodes placed at an angle, such
that incident light illuminates the sensor. For accurate scan-
ning, the Sensor needs a focused beam with a small aperture
in order to read a short, sharp and fast transition between a
dark bar and a light bar of the bar code. On one preferred
embodiment, the small aperture is formed by covering the
sensor with a pin hole cover similar to that used in cameras.
The effect of the pin hole cover produces suitable pulse
transitions for bar code decoding.
[0109) In other embodiments, scanning port 1140 includes
other types of bar code scanners, such as a laser scanner.
Other embodiments of gaming device 1000 include other
types of code readers, depending on the physical embodi-
ment of the code. One such code reader is a radio frequency
sensor for use with RFID labels.
[0110) FIG. 12 is a side view of gaming device 1000. In
this view, scanning port 1140 is on the right side and the
controls described with reference to FIG. 10 are on top.
FIG. 12 illustrates grips 1205, which include ribbed portions
1210 to allow a user to more securely grip gaming device
1000. In some preferred embodiments, grips 1205 are coated
with rubber or a similar material to provide a comfortable
and secure hold. In some embodiments, grips 1205 are
colored differently from the body of gaming device 1000.
[0111] IV. Codes
[0112) According to preferred embodiments of the present
invention, a code which is input to a gaming device has a
primary meaning and the gaming device assigns a secondary
meaning to at least a portion of this code. The secondary
meaning relates to a feature of a game.
[0113) According to many embodiments of the present
invention, the code is a bar code authorized by the Uniform
US 2003/0096652 Al
Code Council ("UCC") and the primary meaning of the code
is the identification of a company and a commercial product
sold by the company. As will be appreciated by those of skill
in the art, a company may obtain an unique company
identification number from the UCC. The company may
then assign unique product identification codes to each of its
products. The company identification number and product
identification code form the main portions of the well-
known Uniform Product Code ("UPC") affixed to most
products sold in the United States.
[0114] FIG. 13 illustrates one method of correlating a
UPC code to a feature of a game. First, the primary meaning
of the UPC code will be described. Code 1300 is only one
variety of UPC code, commonly known as UPC version A.
Digit 1305 is a UPC number system digit which indicates the
type of product in general terms (0 for groceries, 3 for drugs,
etc.). UPC manufacturer's code 1310 is assigned by the
UCC to the manufacturer of the product, as described above.
Product code 1315, comprising UPC item numbers 1
through 5, identifies the specific product to which the UPC
code is attached. Check digit 1320, also known as a "modulo
check sum digit," is used to help verify that the UPC code
has been properly scanned.
[0115] In some embodiments of the present invention, a
secondary meaning is assigned to UPC item numbers 1
through 5. In one such embodiment, the secondary meaning
involves a correspondence between UPC item numbers 1
through 5 and features of the SKANNERZâ„¢ game
described above. If UPC item number 1 is in the range of 0
through 5, the code corresponds to a monster of the SKAN-
NERZâ„¢ game. If UPC item number 1 is in the range of 6
through 9, the code corresponds to an item of the SKAN-
NERZâ„¢ game.
[0116] According to one preferred embodiment, the type
of monster or item number will be determined by UPC item
numbers 3, 4 and 5. One method of encoding these monsters
is to divide the numbers available in this range by the total
number of monsters, then divide the remainder as needed.
[0117] For example, in the case discussed above there are
42 monsters in each tribe and 126 monsters in all. Three
UPC item numbers have been allocated for encoding mon-
ster types, which means numbers 000 through 999 may be
used, providing a total of 1,000 numbers. One thousand
divided by 126 equals 7.94. Therefore, increments of 7
numbers can be used for encoding these 126 monsters. The
range of numbers from 000 to 007 would correspond to the
first monster in Tribe 1, 008 to 015 would correspond to the
first monster in Tribe 2 and so on. Because 1,000 is not a
multiple of 126, the last 2 monsters each have a range of 4
numbers. In other words, the last monster in Tribe 2 would
correspond to the range of numbers 992 through 995 and the
last monster in Tribe 3 would correspond to the range of
numbers 996 through 999.
[0118] Similarly, in some embodiments the 25 items
described with reference to FIG. 5 are defined by the range
of numbers from 000 through 999. One thousand divided by
25 equals 40. Therefore, a range of 40 numbers can be used
to define each item. In one embodiment, item 11 corresponds
to the range of numbers from 000 through 039, item 12
corresponds to the range of numbers from 040 through 079,
and so on.
[0119] The embodiment described above is merely one
example of embodiments which correlate code numbers
8
May 22, 2003
(here, ranges of code numbers) with a particular game
feature. Other embodiments correlate different portions of a
UPC bar code, or the entire bar code, with game features.
[0120] Still other embodiments input at least a portion of
other types of UPC codes and assign the portion to a feature
of a game. For example, other embodiments input at least a
portion of a UPC version B, C or D code. UPC version B,
which is used for some drugs and health related items,
includes 11 digits plus a product type code, but does not
include a check digit. UPC version C is structured substan-
tially the same as version A. UPC version D is a variable-
length code. Version D includes at least 12 digits, including
a product type code, 10 information-carrying digits and a
modulo check sum digit, followed by a variable number of
digits.
[0121] Other embodiments of the present invention input
other types of Global Trade Item Number ("GTIN") codes,
including European Article Numbering ("EAN") or Japa-
neseArticle Numbering ("JAN") codes. EAN codes are very
similar to UPC codes, but include 1 or 2 additional digits
which indicate the country which issued the number. JAN
codes employ the EAN format, except that the 2-digit
country code does not vary. Both the UPC and EAN codes
have shorter, 8-digit versions.
[0122] Many other encoding techniques are within the
scope of the present invention. In some such embodiments,
Global Location Number ("GLN") codes and similar codes
used, e.g., for identifying parcels, are assigned secondary
meanings which correspond with elements of a game. In still
other embodiments, codes used for entirely different pur-
poses, for example, audio or video data compression, data
encryption, etc., are assigned secondary meanings which
correspond with elements of a game.
[0123] Some embodiments or the present invention input
code numbers to an algorithm which determines a correla-
tion with a game feature. For example, some embodiments
of gaming devices according to the present invention add
some or all of the numbers of a code and correlate the sum
with a game feature. Other embodiments perform other
mathematical operations on part or all of a code and corre-
late the result with a game feature. Still other embodiments
determine a corresponding game feature depending on the
positions of certain digits. It is apparent that many of these
techniques do not result in an unique outcome. For example,
various combinations of code numbers will add up to the
same number.
[0124] Although the preferred embodiments have been
described in terms of games, codes and gaming devices for
collecting characters and staging battles between them,
various other applications are within the scope of the present
invention. In one such embodiment, a gaming device is
configured to scan bar codes ( or to input similar codes stored
on RS chips) and stage a treasure hunting game. Instead of
corresponding with monsters or monster items, the control-
ler can be configured to translate a code having a different
primary meaning into a different type of secondary meaning,
such as an item of treasure.
[0125] While the best mode for practicing the invention
has been described in detail, those of skill in the art will
recognize that there are numerous alternative designs,
embodiments, modifications and applied examples which
US 2003/0096652 Al
are within the scope of the present invention. Accordingly,
the scope of this invention is not limited to the previously
described ernbodirnents.
We claim:
1. A gaming program stored in a storage rnediurn of a
gaming device, wherein the gaming program controls the
gaming device to perform the steps of:
inputting at least a portion of a code, the primary meaning
of the code being the identification of a cornrnercial
product; and
assigning a secondary meaning to the portion of the code,
the secondary meaning being a feature of a garne.
2. The gaming program of claim 1, further comprising the
step of processing the feature according to a set of rules for
the garne.
3. The gaming program of claim 1, wherein the inputting
step comprises the step of controlling a sensor to input the
portion of the code.
4. The gaming program of claim 1, wherein the cornrner-
cial product identification is comprised of a product identi-
fication number.
5. The gaming program of claim 1, wherein the cornrner-
cial product identification is comprised of a company iden-
tification number.
6. The gaming program of claim 1, wherein the inputting
step further comprises the step of scanning a portion of a
Universal Product Code.
7. The gaming program of claim 1, wherein the inputting
step further comprises the step of sensing a radio frequency
signal frorn a radio frequency identification code.
8. The gaming program of claim 1, wherein the assigning
step further comprises the step of obtaining the secondary
meaning frorn a look-up table.
9. The gaming program of claim 1, wherein the primary
meaning is assigned by the Uniform Code Council.
10. The gaming program of claim 1, wherein the assigning
step further comprises the steps of:
applying an algorithm to the portion of the code to
produce a result, wherein the result corresponds to the
secondary meaning; and
correlating the secondary meaning with the feature of the
garne.
11. The gaming program of claim 1, wherein the code
comprises a European Article Numbering code.
12. The gaming program of claim 1, wherein the code
comprises a Global Trade Itern Number code.
13. The gaming program of claim 1, wherein the code
comprises a Global Location Number code.
14. The gaming program of claim 2, wherein the process-
ing step further comprises the step of storing the feature in
a storage rnediurn within the gaming device.
15. The gaming program of claim 2, wherein the feature
is a garne character and the processing step further corn-
prises the step of conducting a battle between the garne
character and an adversarial garne character.
16. The gaming program of claim 2, wherein the garne
feature is an itern of treasure, wherein the garne is a treasure
hunt and wherein the processing step further comprises the
step of determining if the itern of treasure is needed in order
to complete the treasure hunt.
17. The gaming program of claim 2, wherein the garne
feature is a monster belonging to one of a plurality of tribes
9
May 22, 2003
and wherein the processing step further comprises the step
of determining whether the monster belongs to a specific
tribe of said plurality of tribes, the specific tribe associated
with the gaming device.
18. A gaming program stored in a storage rnediurn of a
gaming device, wherein the gaming program controls the
gaming device to perform the steps of:
inputting a portion of a code identifying a cornrnercial
product;
correlating a garne character with the portion of the code;
and
staging a battle involving the garne character according to
a pre-defined set of garne rules stored within the
gaming device.
19. The gaming program of claim 18, further comprising
the step of identifying the garne character as a first monster
of a first plurality of monsters, wherein the battle is; between
the first monster and a second monster associated with a
second plurality of monsters.
20. A gaming method, comprising the steps of:
using a sensor of a gaming device to input a portion of a
code having a primary meaning assigned by the Uni-
form Code Council;
determining a secondary meaning for the portion of the
code;
determining whether the secondary meaning corresponds
to a compatible garne feature; and
storing the compatible garne feature.
21. The gaming method of claim 20, wherein the com-
patible garne feature is a garne character.
22. The gaming method of claim 20, wherein the com-
patible garne feature is a monster belonging to a tribe
associated with the gaming device.
23. The gaming method of claim 20, wherein the com-
patible garne feature is an itern which alters an attribute of
a garne character.
24. The gaming method of claim 20, wherein the com-
patible garne feature is an itern of treasure.
25. The gaming method of claim 20, further comprising
the steps of:
determining whether the secondary meaning corresponds
to an incompatible garne feature; and
initiating a contest between the incompatible garne feature
and the stored compatible garne feature.
26. The gaming method of claim 25, further comprising
the step of selecting an offensive monster, wherein the
offensive monster is used in the contest.
27. The gaming method of claim 25, further comprising
the step of selecting one of a plurality of stored game
features, wherein the selected garne feature is used in the
contest.
28. The gaming method of claim 25, further comprising
the step of selecting a stored itern, wherein the stored itern
impacts the contest.
29. A gaming program stored in a storage rnediurn of a
gaming device, wherein the gaming program controls the
gaming device to perform the steps of:
US 2003/0096652 Al
scanning a product identification number of a Universal
Product Code, the primary meaning of the product
identification number being the identification of a com-
mercial product;
assigning a secondary meaning to at least a portion of the
product identification number, the secondary meaning
corresponding with a monster belonging to one of a
plurality of tribes;
10
May 22, 2003
determining whether the monster belongs to a specific
tribe of said plurality of tribes, the specific tribe asso-
ciated with the gaming device;
storing monster data when the monster belongs to the
specific tribe; and
staging a battle against the monster when the monster
does not belong to the specific tribe.
* * * * *