Nguyen Gaming LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 10, 2021

2021001847 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/427,308 02/08/2017 Binh T. Nguyen 902-P016C1 3097 68803 7590 09/10/2021 TI Law Group, PC 1055 E Brokaw Road Suite 30-355 San Jose, CA 95131-2116 EXAMINER GALKA, LAWRENCE STEFAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/10/2021 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): TILGDocket@yahoo.com aspence@tipatents.com dthomas@tipatents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte BINH T. NGUYEN and DARRELL RILETT ____________ Appeal 2021-001847 Application 15/427,308 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1–9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the inventors as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001847 Application 15/427,308 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to a “Configurable Virtual Gaming Zone.” Spec., Title. Claims 1 and 9 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for configuring zone-based gaming activity within a gaming establishment, the method comprising: setting, by a zone controller, a location within the gaming establishment for the zone-based gaming activity, the location being at least one defined region within the gaming establishment; configuring, by the zone controller, a virtual gaming zone for the location within the gaming establishment for the zone- based gaming activity; identifying, by at least one location tracker, one or more gaming devices that are within the virtual gaming zone; updating at predetermined time intervals, by the at least one location tracker, a device location of the one or more gaming devices; determining if the updated device location of the one or more gaming devices is located within the virtual gaming zone; permitting, by a gaming server, the identified one or more gaming devices that are within the virtual gaming zone to participate in the zone-based gaming activity; and denying, by the gaming server, participation in the zone- based gaming activity if it is determined that the updated device location of the one or more gaming devices is not located within the virtual gaming zone. Appeal 2021-001847 Application 15/427,308 3 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: Name Reference(s) Date Howington US 2002/0152120 A1 Oct. 17, 2002 Bryant US 2004/0038736 A1 Feb. 26, 2004 Oberberger US 2006/0252530 A1 Nov. 9, 2006 Burke US 2010/0081509 A1 Apr. 1, 2010 The following rejections are before us for review: I. Claims 1–3 and 7–9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Burke, Howington, and Oberberger. II. Claims 4–6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Burke, Howington, Oberberger, and Bryant. OPINION Rejection I Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Burke discloses a method comprising, inter alia: setting a location within a gaming establishment for zone-based gaming activity (i.e., “selection [] on a floor map [of machines]”) (citing Burke ¶¶ 104, 127, Fig. 11A); configuring a virtual gaming zone for the location (i.e., “select[ing] . . . rules for content on machines [in a] . . . geographic location”) (citing id. ¶¶ 104, 127); identifying gaming devices within the virtual gaming zone (i.e., “the system tracks the location of devices by showing them on the screen in a map 1104”) (citing id. ¶ 127); and permitting or denying the identified gaming Appeal 2021-001847 Application 15/427,308 4 devices participation in the zone-based gaming activity based on the location of gaming device being within or without the virtual gaming zone (i.e., “turning on bonus events for the selected area by the controlling computer”) (citing id. ¶ 128, Fig. 11b). Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner determines that Burke does not disclose updating, at predetermined time intervals, the location of the gaming devices, as required by claim 1, and the Examiner relies on Howington for disclosing “a gaming machine tracking and location system whereby the location of gaming machines are updated periodically by a location tracker for display of an overview of the casino.” Final Act. 3 (citing Howington ¶¶ 40–44 (emphases added)). The Examiner finds that [o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of automatically updating the system of the locations of gaming machines periodically to account for any alterations, relocations and replacements on the gaming floor and thereby being associated with the drawn zones around that area and neighboring machines to include the relevant gaming machines to automate the maintenance of the gaming system. Final Act. 3–4. Thus, the Examiner proposes modifying Burke, in view of Howington, to update Burke’s gaming machine locations, for example, “to automate the maintenance of the gaming system.” Id. at 4. The Examiner determines that Burke, as modified by Howington, does not disclose that “the periodic updating is at predetermined time intervals,” as required by claim 1, and the Examiner relies on Oberberger for disclosing “a casino management system where mobile devices in the system are tracked and locations are updated using a variety of triggers including schedule or periodic intervals, on demand, change in location, etc.” Final Act. 4 (citing Oberberger ¶ 154 (emphasis added)). The Appeal 2021-001847 Application 15/427,308 5 Examiner also finds that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized this list of known options for triggering updates to a casino management system in order to keep the data in the system relevant and accurate.” Id. The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to have modified Burke, as modified by Howington, in further view of Oberberger, “to have used scheduled intervals to update the data . . . producing the expected result of a management system with up to date information and thereby allowing the system to operate effectively.” Id. at 4–5. First, Appellant argues that “Oberberger teaches that its displayed information may be updated at periodic intervals and does not teach or suggest that the location of the mobile device (MD) is updated at periodic intervals.” Appeal Br. 7. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument, which fails to address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. As relied on by the Examiner, and with reference to Burke’s Figures 11A and 11B, Burke depicts selecting (or identifying) wagering game machines 1110 in the map 1104, which may include specific bonus events (or games in a gaming zone). See Burke ¶¶ 127, 128. Figure 11A of Burke is reproduced below. Appeal 2021-001847 Application 15/427,308 6 Figure 11A of Burke shows “a graphical user interface through which an operator can select wagering game machines,” and more specifically, a matrix of wagering game machines 1110 on a casino floor map 1104, wherein a rectangle depicted as a dashed line indicates a selection area 1106 about a subset of the wagering game machines within the matrix. Burke ¶ 40. The Examiner relies on Howington for disclosing updating a gaming device’s location: “[w]hen a machine is located or moved within the casino, its new location is reported to the management system” (Howington ¶ 43), and on Oberberger for disclosing triggering updates to a casino management system based on periodic intervals: “displayed information may be updated . . . based on a variety of conditions such as . . . at scheduled and/or periodic intervals” (Oberberger ¶ 154). Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error in these findings, or challenge the Examiner’s reasoning for modifying Burke, in view of Howington, to automate the task of updating the casino management system to account for the relocation of a machine, or in view of Oberberger to update such information at predetermined time intervals. Appeal 2021-001847 Application 15/427,308 7 Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also Ans. 3. Next, Appellant argues that because the Examiner’s combination of Burke, Howington, and Oberberger does not teach “‘updating at predetermined time intervals … a device location of one or more gaming devices,’” the Examiner’s combination cannot teach “‘determining if the updated device location of the one or more gaming devices is located within the virtual gaming zone,’” as claimed. Appeal Br. 8. However, as discussed supra, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s combination of Burke, Howington, and Oberberger to arrive at the claim limitation of updating, at predetermined time intervals, the location of a gaming device. Appellant further argues that, in Burke, “there is no ‘updated device location’ much less ‘determining if the updated device location of the one or more gaming devices is located within the virtual gaming zone.’” Id.; see also Reply Br. 2 (“Burke teaches that an operator selects fixed, pre- positioned gaming machines that are already positioned on the gaming floor and there is no ‘updated device location’.”). Again, however, the Examiner relies on Howington, not Burke, for updating the location of gaming devices. Thus, Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error in the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s combination does not teach permitting or denying the identified gaming devices from participating in the zone-based gaming activity based on whether the updated device location is within or without the virtual gaming zone, because “the location of the Appeal 2021-001847 Application 15/427,308 8 devices of Burke, Howington, and Oberberger are not updated at predetermined time intervals and therefore it cannot be determined if the updated location of the devices are within the virtual gaming zone.” Appeal Br. 9. This conclusory argument is also unpersuasive, because Appellant does not specify any alleged errors in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning for combining the references to result in the claimed subject matter. Finally, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s combination “would at best simply result in the ability to update locations of the gaming machines of Burke, and updating the displayed information on those gaming machines at predetermined time intervals.” Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 1 (“The alleged combination of prior art references would, at best, result in updating the location of tracked devices as well as periodically updating the information to be displayed on the tracked devices.”). We disagree with the Appellant’s conclusion. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, that updating Burke’s virtual gaming zone, as displayed in Figure 11A supra, wherein gaming machines are allowed to participate in a bonus event (or zone-based gaming activity), to identify those gaming machines that have been relocated outside of the virtual gaming zone, as taught in Howington, would predictably result in those relocated gaming machines being denied participation in the bonus event that is reserved for those gaming machines inside of the virtual gaming zone. See e.g., Burke ¶ 128 (disclosing that for the selected machines, bonus events may be enabled). Notably, the Examiner’s proposed combination does not involve bodily incorporating Howington’s disclosure, to the extent Appeal 2021-001847 Application 15/427,308 9 it is limited to tracking mobile gaming devices for the purpose of displaying information on the tracked devices. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Appellant recites the limitations of dependent claims 2, 3, 7, and 8, which depend from independent claim 1, and also the limitations of independent claim 9, and relies on the arguments presented supra for claim 1 for the patentability of these claims. Appeal Br. 10–15. Notably, statements that merely point out what a claim recites are not considered to present an argument for separate patentability of the claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Rule 41.37 requires more than recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the elements are not found in the prior art). Thus, for essentially the same reasons stated supra for claim 1, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, and 7–9.2 Rejection II Appellant recites the limitations of dependent claims 4 to 6, which depend from independent claim 1, and relies on the arguments presented supra for claim 1 for the patentability of these claims; thus, for essentially 2 Notably, and contrary to the Examiner’s position in the Examiner’s Answer, we construe independent claim 1 to require an order in which the recited method steps are performed, due to the antecedent basis included in the claims, wherein “one or more gaming devices that are within the virtual gaming zone” are identified, and next, “a device location of the one or more gaming devices” is updated. Appeal Br., A-1, Claims App. (emphasis added); Ans. 3–5. Similarly, independent claim 9 recites an electronic gaming system, wherein a location database is configured to “store a device location of each of a plurality of gaming devices,” and next, the claim requires “updat[ing] the device location of each of the plurality of gaming devices.” Appeal Br., A-3, Claims App. (emphasis added); Ans. 3–5. Appeal 2021-001847 Application 15/427,308 10 the same reasons stated supra for claim 1, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 to 6. Appeal Br. 15–16. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–9 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 7–9 103(a) Burke, Howington, Oberberger 1–3, 7–9 4–6 103(a) Burke, Howington, Oberberger, Bryant 4–6 Overall Outcome 1–9 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED