PTAB

IPR2016-00182

Aristocrat Technologies Inc v. Igt

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • 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 video reels instead of mechanical reels. Upon achieving a specific game outcome, the device displays an "exhibition" (e.g., an animation) that replaces one or more of the video reels to inform the player of the outcome, such as winning a bonus spin.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Manship - Claims 14-19 and 23-25 are obvious over Manship.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Manship (Patent 5,697,843).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Manship, a video slot machine patent, disclosed all limitations of the challenged claims. Manship described a device with a 3x3 grid of video reels that enters a "Swinging Bells" bonus mode upon a "crossed bells" symbol combination. Petitioner contended that Manship's disclosure of enhancing the display colors and enlarging the bells upon entering this mode constituted an "exhibition" that "replaces" the video reels containing the triggering symbols. This exhibition informed the player they had reached the bonus spin, meeting the core limitations of independent claims 14, 18, and 23. For limitations not explicitly taught, such as all nine reels spinning during the bonus mode, Petitioner asserted it would have been an obvious implementation to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) as it was a well-known feature.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable as this is a single-reference ground. Petitioner argued that any minor modifications to Manship, such as using a swinging bell animation to announce the bonus mode entry (rather than just a bonus payout), would be an obvious design choice. A POSA would be motivated to increase player appeal and excitement, a goal explicitly mentioned in Manship.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSA would have a high expectation of success in applying known animations to indicate game events, as this was a common technique in the field to enhance player engagement.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Manship in view of Thomas - Claims 20 and 21 are obvious over Manship and Thomas.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Manship (Patent 5,697,843) and Thomas (Patent 5,449,173).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Manship provided the base gaming device with a plurality of bonus spin outcomes, as established in Ground 1. To meet the additional limitation of claim 20—"video reels moving to give the effect that the reels are shaking"—Petitioner relied on Thomas. Thomas disclosed a slot machine with a "supplemental pay off sequence" where a reel shakes or jitters. For claim 21, which required a "gradually increasing said shaking effect," Petitioner argued this would be an obvious modification. Manship already taught increasing audio output with larger wins, and a POSA would understand that gradually increasing a visual effect like shaking could similarly convey information about the magnitude of a win.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSA would combine the teachings to enhance game appeal, a stated goal in both references. Thomas explicitly described its novel features, including shaking reels, as a way to "attract player interest." A POSA would apply the known shaking effect from Thomas to the video slot machine of Manship to create a more exciting and appealing game.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Simulating a mechanical effect like a shaking reel on a video display was well within the skill of a POSA, as video slot machines were largely simulations of mechanical ones.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Cannon, Bennett, and Watts - Claims 14-19 and 23-25 are obvious over Cannon, Bennett, and Watts.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Cannon (Patent 5,766,074), Bennett (WO 97/32285), and Watts (Patent 5,775,692).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative combination for the main body of challenged claims. Petitioner argued Cannon disclosed a base video slot machine that used an "exhibition"—highlighting winning symbols with brighter colors while fading non-winning ones—that replaced the original symbols on the video reels. Bennett was cited to teach more advanced animations, such as a dancing penguin, to replace symbols in a winning combination. Watts was cited for its teaching of a bonus spin feature triggered by a winning symbol combination, where reels not involved in the trigger could also spin. The combination of these references taught a gaming device where a winning combination triggers an animated exhibition that replaces reels and informs the player of a bonus spin outcome.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSA would combine Cannon and Bennett to create more visually appealing and exciting feedback for winning outcomes than simply changing colors. This combination would then be combined with Watts to incorporate the highly attractive and well-known feature of bonus spins, which Watts taught are triggered by the same type of winning combinations that Cannon and Bennett used to trigger their exhibitions.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination involved applying known methods (animations, bonus spins) to a known system (video slot machine) to achieve the predictable result of a more commercially attractive game.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including: claims 20 and 21 over the combination of Cannon, Bennett, Watts, and Thomas; and claim 22 over Manship and Dickenson (Patent 5,251,898) as well as over Cannon, Bennett, Watts, and Dickenson. These grounds relied on similar combination rationales, adding Thomas for shaking reels and Dickenson for oppositely spinning reels to the primary combinations.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "exhibition": Petitioner argued the Board should adopt the patent's explicit definition, which included "(a) reels which are animated" and/or "(b) an audio, visual or audiovisual representation of a person, place or thing in motion or at rest." This broad construction was central to arguing that prior art features like color-enhanced symbols constituted an exhibition.
  • "replace [a video reel]": Petitioner proposed that this term means "the area of a reel (including at least each symbol position visible to the user) is used to display an exhibition." This construction supported the argument that when a prior art reference modified the symbols on a reel to show a game outcome, it was "replacing" the reel as claimed.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 14-25 of the ’570 patent as unpatentable.