PTAB

IPR2016-00252

Aristocrat Technologies Inc v. Igt

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Gaming Device Having a Multiple Selection Group Bonus Round
  • Brief Description: The ’469 patent discloses gaming devices, such as video slot machines, that feature a bonus round with multiple "selection groups." During the bonus round, a player chooses from a plurality of symbols within these groups to reveal hidden awards.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over LMAD - Claims 1-5, 7-15, 18-22, 28-32, and 35

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: LMAD (Frank Legato, The Full Monty, Strictly Slots, June 1999).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that LMAD, an article describing a "Let's Make A Deal" themed video slot machine, disclosed all limitations of the challenged claims. LMAD’s "Deal Feature" bonus game included two sequential selection groups (first, a group of packages; second, a group of doors), with each group having a plurality of selections (three each). The game provided the player one guaranteed pick from each group, satisfying the "guaranteed number of picks" limitation. Petitioner contended that LMAD’s description of awards as "two to eight times the total bet" and "six to ten times the first round's award" taught awards with a value greater than zero. The game was described as being implemented on a platform with a processor, display, and input devices, as required by device claims.
    • Motivation to Combine (for single-reference obviousness): The Petitioner asserted that for any minor variations between LMAD and the claims, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would have found it obvious to make the necessary modifications. Specifically, to meet the limitation that every selection has a non-zero award, a POSA would have modified the rare "Zonk" outcome (a potential zero-value award) in LMAD's second selection group to instead provide a small bonus amount.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a high expectation of success in modifying the "Zonk" award, as it was a simple design choice intended to increase player enjoyment by ensuring a winning outcome in the bonus round.

Ground 2: Obviousness over LMAD in view of Thomas - Claims 23-27

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: LMAD (as described above), Thomas (Patent 6,190,255).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims requiring a "reveal sequence" that displays the awards associated with unselected options after a player's pick. Petitioner argued that LMAD taught the fundamental structure of the multi-group bonus game. Thomas was introduced to supply the missing "reveal sequence" element. Thomas explicitly taught a feature in a bonus game where, after the game ends, the program "reveal[s] the outcomes" associated with the unchosen selections.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would combine Thomas's reveal feature with the LMAD bonus game to enhance player enjoyment and excitement. Petitioner argued that revealing what "might have been" was a known and standard technique in video game design to increase player engagement. This combination was a predictable application of a known feature to an existing game.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination had a high expectation of success because it involved adding a known, self-contained feature (the reveal sequence) to a conventional bonus game, with the predictable result of increased player interest.

Ground 3: Obviousness over LMAD in view of Walker - Claims 16-17 and 33-34

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: LMAD (as described above), Walker (Patent 6,174,235).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted method claims requiring the game to be provided or controlled "through a data network," such as the internet. Petitioner asserted that LMAD disclosed the underlying game method. Walker was cited for its teaching of implementing gaming devices over networks. Walker explicitly disclosed that software for gaming devices may be operative "over networks, such as the Internet."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would be motivated to adapt the LMAD game for network play as taught by Walker to achieve the well-understood benefits of networked gaming. These benefits included allowing the gaming device to access player-related information (e.g., user preferences, funds) stored on a network server, a known advantage in the industry.
    • Expectation of Success: Implementing a known game (LMAD) on a known platform (a network, as taught by Walker) was a routine design step with a predictable and successful outcome.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "a guaranteed number of picks": Petitioner argued this term, introduced during prosecution to distinguish prior art, should be construed as "a number of picks that the player receives regardless of the player's previous selections." This construction was based on the applicant's arguments distinguishing the Sphinx reference, where a pick in a second group was contingent upon the outcome in the first group. Under this construction, LMAD's bonus game, which always allows one pick in each of its two stages, meets the limitation.
  • "accumulated": Petitioner proposed that "accumulated" should be construed to mean "totaled or summed" and must encompass both of the patent's disclosed embodiments: (1) revealing awards immediately after each pick and (2) revealing the total award only at the end of the bonus round. This construction was crucial for arguing that LMAD, which reveals the award from the first selection group before the second group is played, satisfies claims reciting this term.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-5 and 7-35 of the ’469 patent as unpatentable.