Ex Parte KRINTZMAN - Page 9




              Appeal No. 03-2051                                                                  Page 9                
              Application No. 09/127,183                                                                                


                     Acres et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,162,122,3 which has come to our attention, is                       
              directed to a method and apparatus for operating networked gaming devices.  This                          
              patent discloses a system for automating gaming device configurations to make them                        
              more attractive to players by reconfiguring them under certain circumstances to provide                   
              an additional incentive to players to use the devices (column 2, lines 7-26).  The                        
              reconfiguration activates a bonus payout schedule as a result of tracking such factors                    
              as the number of coins deposited by a player, the time the player has spent at the                        
              machine, and the number of coins won and games played (column 3, lines 1-46).                             
              Thus, it would appear that the objectives of the Acres system are similar to those of the                 
              appellant’s invention.  Structure for accomplishing these objectives is described in the                  
              patent.                                                                                                   
                     This application is remanded to the examiner for evaluation of the patentability of                
              the appellant’s claims in view of the teachings of Acres.  In considering this matter, the                
              attention of the examiner is directed to the discussions relating to rejecting claims                     
              containing means-plus-function limitations which appear in the Manual of Patent                           
              Examining Procedure.                                                                                      
                                                    CONCLUSION                                                          
                     Neither rejection is sustained.                                                                    
                     The decision of the examiner is reversed.                                                          

                     3Copy enclosed.                                                                                    







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007