PTAB

IPR2015-00182

VSR Industries Inc v. Cole KePro Intl LLC

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Gaming Apparatus Having Door Mounted Display
Brief Description: The ’814 patent discloses a gaming apparatus with a cabinet and a door. The purported novelty is a reduced cabinet depth achieved by mounting a generally planar video display to the inner surface of the door, aligned with an opening in the door.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Fraley (Patent 3,796,433).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Fraley, which discloses a blackjack gaming machine, teaches every limitation of independent claim 1. Fraley describes a gaming apparatus with a cabinet and a hinged front door. The door has an opening and a "generally planar analogue display" mounted to its inner surface for displaying game results. This display is movable with the door, and a gaming controller is located within the cabinet's interior space. For dependent claims, Petitioner asserted that using a mount (claim 2) is an obvious way to attach a display, and adding player input buttons to the door (claim 6) is also disclosed.
- Motivation to Combine: As a single-reference ground, the motivation was to improve the prior art device. Petitioner contended that Fraley itself suggests its analogue display "may be modified" with "other display panel layouts." A POSITA would have recognized that replacing Fraley’s older analogue display with a modern, well-known planar video display (e.g., an LCD) would be an obvious and simple design choice to update the device, improve resolution, and reduce manufacturing complexity.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in substituting the display, as LCD and plasma displays were common components in electronic devices, including gaming machines, well before the ’814 patent's priority date.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Runte (Patent 3,940,136).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended Runte discloses an amusement device (a tabletop ping-pong game) that meets the structural limitations of the claims. Runte features a housing (cabinet) and a hinged tabletop (door) with an opening. A conventional cathode ray tube (CRT) video display is mounted to the interior of the tabletop, movable with it, and aligned with the opening. Electronic circuitry within the housing acts as a gaming controller.
- Motivation to Combine: The motivation centered on adapting Runte’s design for different applications and improving its form factor. Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to a POSITA to orient Runte’s tabletop device as an upright console, a configuration Runte itself suggests. In such an orientation, the tabletop becomes the front door. Furthermore, it would have been an obvious design choice to replace Runte’s bulky CRT with a known flat panel display (e.g., LCD), which would have the benefit of reducing the cabinet’s depth, a key feature of the ’814 patent.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected success in replacing the CRT with a flat panel display, as this was a common technological upgrade to reduce device size, weight, and power consumption.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Smith (Patent 5,351,176).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Smith, which discloses a front panel display for a rack-mounted computer, anticipates the structural elements of claims 1-3 and 5. Smith teaches a computer housing (cabinet) with a hinged front panel (door) containing an opening. A planar LCD video display is mounted to the inner surface of the panel, is movable with the panel, and is aligned with the opening. The computer’s CPU and related circuitry serve as the claimed "gaming controller." Petitioner argued the preamble term "gaming apparatus" is a non-limiting statement of intended use and does not add a structural limitation to the claim body. Therefore, Smith’s computer assembly, which contains all the necessary hardware to run software (including games), meets every structural limitation of the challenged claims.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional challenges, including that claims 1-14 are obvious over Fraley in view of Okada (Patent 4,718,672) and Runte in view of Okada, arguing Okada explicitly teaches using LCD panels in gaming devices. Petitioner also argued in the alternative that all claims (1-14) are obvious over Smith, contending that adapting Smith’s computer for gaming and making minor design modifications (like adding buttons) would have been obvious to a POSITA.

generally planar video display: Petitioner proposed this term means "a liquid crystal display screen, a plasma display panel, or another substantially planar or thin video display," and explicitly argued that it does not include a cathode ray tube (CRT). This construction was central to the arguments for replacing older CRT or analogue displays in the prior art.
reduced depth dimension / reduced dimension from said front to said back: Petitioner proposed these terms mean the cabinet’s depth (front-to-back) is less than its width (side-to-side). This construction was used to argue that prior art devices met this limitation or could be obviously modified to do so, for instance, by replacing a CRT with a thin display.

Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-14 of the ’814 patent as unpatentable.