UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Ex parte FRANZ LECHNER and HELMUT STEFFENINI

Transcription

1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FRANZ LECHNER and HELMUT STEFFENINI Appeal Technology Center 3700 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, EDWARD A. BROWN, and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Franz Lechner and Helmut Steffenini (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. 134 from the Examiner s decision rejecting claims 1 3, 5 7, and Br We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as WMS Gaming, Inc. Br Claims 4 and 8 are cancelled. Br , Claims App.

2 matter: Claimed Subject Matter Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject 1. A data management device for use in an electronic gaming device of a network of interconnected data management devices of an electronic gaming system, the data management device comprising: a plurality of connectors for interfacing components of the electronic gaming device and receiving data from the components of the electronic gaming device; a processor unit configured to process the data, wherein the data comprises unchangeable static data, and process information received from outside the electronic gaming device, wherein the information is for use in configuring the electronic gaming device; a memory unit for storing the data and the information; a communication device configured to facilitate configuration of another electronic gaming device of said electronic gaming system by sharing of the data and the information with another data management device within the other electronic gaming device. Rejection 3 Claims 1 3, 5 7, and 9 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Gauselmann (US 6,089,980, issued July 18, 2000) and Lucero (US 4,283,709, issued Aug. 11, 1981). 3 The rejection of claims 1, 14, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, has been withdrawn. Answer 4. 2

3 ANALYSIS Claims 1 3, 5 7, 9 13, 30, and 31 The data management device recited in claim 1 comprises, a processor unit configured to process the data, wherein the data comprises unchangeable static data and a communication device configured to facilitate configuration of another electronic gaming device of said electronic gaming system by sharing of the data and the information with another data management device within the other electronic gaming device. (Emphasis added). The Examiner finds Gauselmann discloses a communication device configured to facilitate configuration of an electronic gaming device by sharing data with another data management device, wherein gaming devices in [communication] with each other [] convert one of the gaming devices into a master operator with slave operators being the other connected devices. Answer 5 (citing Gauselmann, col. 7, ll. 1 37). The Examiner determines Gauselmann discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 except for the data comprises unchangeable static data. Answer 5 6. The Examiner finds Lucero discloses a data management device that maintains and processes unchangeable static data that all newly submitted game machine data is compared to, in order to detect abnormal operation or cheating by players. Id. at 6 (citing Locero, col. 12, ll ). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to implement a processor comprising an unchangeable static data manager, as taught by Lucero, into Gauselmann s gaming management system to provide a data management system that prevents cheating. Id. 3

4 Appellants contend the combination of Gauselmann and Locero fails to disclose a communication device having the claimed limitations. Br Appellants contend Gauselmann s gambling machines share jackpot data (Br. 9 (citing Gauselman, col. 6, l. 62 col. 7, l. 37)), which is dynamic, changing data (id. at 11). Appellants further contend Locero discloses slot machines that include a data communication board to provide nonstatic data, including changing conditions related to the slot machine, to a host computer. Id. at 10 (citing Locero Abstract; col. 12, ll , col. 16, ll. 9 12). According to Appellants, Lucero s slot machines provide dynamic and changing data (operational status data and financial status data) to a host computer (not to other electronic gaming devices). Id. (underlining omitted). Appellants Specification describes static data, as follows: The static data are data that are strictly correlated to the data management devices 101a 101n of a respective electronic gaming device 100a 100n. The static data cannot be changed and are not suited for data processing in another data management device 101a 101n. Thus, the static data specifically correspond to one single data management device 101a 101n. Spec. 47. The Examiner notes that the Specification discloses the static data comprise position identification data, which can be equivalent to the IP address of the data management device 101a 101n, or to the electronic gaming device in the network. Ans. 11; see Spec. 48. The Examiner construes the claimed unchangeable static data as an IP address of the specific device in a gaming device network, which is static regardless of the device s function. Answer 11. Then, the Examiner determines Lucero 4

5 teaches that each gaming device has a unique data communication address that is static to the gaming device, and does not change regardless of the device s function. Answer (citing Lucero, col. 12, ll ). Lucero describes, each slot machine in a casino may have a unique address independent of which node of a plurality of nodes it is coupled to, thereby allowing the movement of machines between nodes without losing the unique identity thereof. See Lucero, col. 12, ll We agree with the Examiner that the unique address described in Lucero reasonably can be considered position identification data of a slot machine. See Spec. 48. However, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner does not identify where Locero discloses transmitting static data from one slot machine to another slot machine to facilitate its configuration. Br. 11. In addition, the Examiner does not indicate what particular disclosure in Lucero is considered to correspond to the comparator to which all the newly submitted game machine data is compared to, to detect an abnormality or cheating. Answer 6 (citing Lucero, col. 12, ll ). To the extent the Examiner considers the unique address to be the comparator, Lucero merely discloses the unique address is used to allow movement of machines between nodes without losing the unique identity of the machines. The Examiner fails to explain how Lucero s unique address would be used as static data to detect an abnormality or cheating in Gauselmann s device. Thus, the Examiner fails to articulate an adequate reason with rational underpinnings to combine the teachings of Gauselmann and Lucero. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or its dependent claims 3, 5 7, 9 13, 30, and 31. 5

6 Claims Claim 14 recites an electronic gaming device comprising, a processor unit for processing data, wherein the data comprises unchangeable static data and dynamic data, and a communication device for providing at least some of the data to another data management device within another electronic gaming device. Br , Claims App. For claim 14, the Examiner provides similar findings and reasoning as provided for the rejection of claim 1. Answer 7 9. For reasons similar to those discussed above for the rejection of claim 1, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner fails to articulate an adequate reason with rational underpinnings to combine the teachings of Gauselmann and Lucero to result in the electronic gaming device recited in claim 14. See Br. 12. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 14, or its dependent claims Claims Claim 24 recites a method for controlling and monitoring electronic gaming devices of an electronic gaming system comprising, receiving, with a processor unit provided in the data management device, data from the electronic gaming device, the data comprising unchangeable static data and communicating the data with at least one other data management device provided in another electronic gaming device of said electronic gaming system. Br , Claims App. The Examiner provides the same findings and reasoning for claim 24 as those as provided for the rejection of claims 1 and 14. Answer 7 9. For reasons similar to those discussed above for the rejection of claims 1 and 14, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner 6

7 fails to articulate an adequate reason with rational underpinnings to combine the teachings of Gauselmann and Lucero to result in the method recited in claim 24. See Br. 13. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 24, or its dependent claims reversed. DECISION The Examiner s decision rejecting claims 1 3, 5 7, and 9 31 is JRG REVERSED 7