PTAB

IPR2016-00181

Aristocrat Technologies Inc v. Igt

Key Events

Petition

petition Intelligence

Title: Gaming Device Displaying an Exhibition for Replacing Video Reels
Brief Description: The ’570 patent discloses a gaming device, such as a video slot machine, that uses a plurality of video reels. Upon the occurrence of a specific triggering combination of symbols, the device’s processor controls the display to replace one or more video reels with an “exhibition,” such as an animation, that informs the player of a game outcome like a win or entry into a bonus round.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Manship (Patent 5,697,843).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Manship, which discloses a video slot machine with a 3x3 array of video reels, taught all limitations of the challenged claims. Specifically, Manship’s “Swinging Bells” bonus mode is triggered by a combination of bell symbols. Upon entering this mode, the triggering bell symbols are enlarged and color-enhanced. During the bonus spins, any bell symbol that appears animates by “swinging back and forth.” Petitioner asserted these animations constitute an “exhibition” under the ’570 patent’s claim construction. Because each reel in Manship displays a single symbol, this exhibition replaces the entire video reel on which it appears and informs the player of a game outcome (either entry into the bonus mode or a bonus payout), meeting the limitations of claim 1. Dependent claims related to bonus games, bonus credits, and spins of non-replaced reels were also allegedly disclosed within Manship’s bonus mode description.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Cannon (Patent 5,766,074) and Bennett (WO 97/32285).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Cannon taught the basic elements of claim 1. Cannon disclosed a five-reel video slot machine that updates its display to highlight winning symbols with brighter colors while fading non-winning symbols. Petitioner argued this differential highlighting is an “exhibition” that “replaces” the symbols on the reels. When a winning combination occurs vertically on a single reel, the entire reel is replaced by this exhibition. Bennett disclosed using more dynamic animations to indicate game outcomes, such as an animated penguin character that acts as a wild card, moves across the reels, and dances when part of a winning combination. Combining these references renders the claims obvious.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Bennett’s more engaging and visually appealing animated exhibitions with Cannon’s system for indicating game outcomes. The goal was to better attract and retain player attention, a well-known objective in the competitive 1990s slot machine market, by providing a clearer and more exciting indication of a win.
- Expectation of Success: Combining the known animation techniques from Bennett with the conventional video slot machine display of Cannon was a predictable implementation that would yield the expected result of a more visually appealing game.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Singer (Patent 6,893,342).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Singer, which qualifies as prior art through a provisional application filed in May 1999, disclosed all limitations for this ground. Singer taught a five-reel “Pearl Diver” themed slot machine. When a specific combination of a pearl symbol on a pre-selected reel and a WILD symbol occurs, the game triggers an animation of a diver. This diver character, positioned above the reels, “dives down on the display and grabs the pearl.” Petitioner asserted that this diving animation replaces the symbols on the reel as it travels down its path. This animation serves as an “exhibition” that replaces at least one video reel (the middle reel in an example) between two other reels, informing the player they have won a bonus award, thereby meeting the limitations of claims 1, 3, and 10.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including claims 11 and 13 over Manship in view of Barrie (for adding more reels and textual messages), claim 13 over Cannon, Bennett, and Barrie (for adding textual payline multipliers), and claims 2-9 over Cannon, Bennett, and Watts (for explicitly adding bonus spin features).

"exhibition": Petitioner argued for adopting the patent’s explicit lexicography, defining "exhibition" as either “(a) reels which are animated” or “(b) an audio, visual or audiovisual representation of a person, place or thing in motion or at rest.” This broad definition encompasses simple effects like changing colors or expanding, as well as complex animations.
"replace [a video reel]": Petitioner proposed that this term means the area of a video reel, including at least all visible symbol positions, is used to display an exhibition. This construction is based on the specification’s examples, where an animated elephant exhibition is displayed over the area previously occupied by three distinct video reels.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-13 of the ’570 patent as unpatentable.