PTAB

IPR2019-00317

William Hill US Holdco Inc v. CG Technology Development LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Devices for Gaming
  • Brief Description: The ’224 patent is directed to a gaming computing device that uses a two-tiered verification process to identify a patron before offering gaming activities. The system employs an identification scanner to read a government-issued document and a biological sensor to capture biometric data for verification.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 2, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-15 by Bradford

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bradford (Patent 6,612,928).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Bradford, titled “Player Identification Using Biometric Data in a Gaming Environment,” discloses every limitation of independent claim 2. Bradford teaches a gaming device with a two-factor authentication system: a "first authenticator" (e.g., a driver's license with machine-readable symbols) read by a "first authenticator reader" (an identification acceptor/scanner), and a "second authenticator" (biometric data) read by a biometric reader (a biological sensor). Petitioner asserted that Bradford’s system is programmed to obtain digital data from both sources, verify the patron's identity and acceptability for gaming, and offer gaming activities upon successful verification, directly mapping to the limitations of claim 2. Dependent claims were also argued to be anticipated, such as using a camera for facial recognition (claim 5) and conducting gaming against a remote wagering account (claim 15), which Petitioner contended are explicitly taught or inherently disclosed in Bradford.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 2, 4-7, and 9-15 over Bradford in view of Parrott

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bradford (’928 patent) and Parrott (Application # 2005/0054417).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that to the extent Bradford does not explicitly teach every element, Parrott supplies the missing disclosures. Parrott describes gaming machines with integrated scanners designed to accept and read identification documents like a driver's license, converting the information into digital form for verification. It also explicitly discloses integrating currency acceptors and dispensers within the gaming device cabinet. This combination allegedly renders claim 2 obvious by combining Bradford's two-factor authentication framework with Parrott's specific implementation of a document scanner and currency handling hardware. The combination also allegedly renders obvious dependent claims requiring a currency acceptor (claim 12) and an acceptor for credit/debit cards (claim 13).
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Bradford and Parrott because both relate to the same field of casino gaming systems and address the common goal of patron identification and funding. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate the well-known scanner and currency handling technology from Parrott into Bradford's authentication system to create a more integrated and efficient gaming device, which Petitioner described as a predictable combination of known elements.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the integration involved combining known, compatible components for their conventional purposes within a gaming machine.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claim 4 over Bradford in view of Parrott and Slater

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bradford (’928 patent), Parrott (’417 application), and Slater (Patent 7,792,753).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically targeted claim 4, which adds the limitation of accepting funds for deposit into wagering accounts hosted by two or more different gaming operators who are distinct legal entities. Petitioner argued that while the combination of Bradford and Parrott teaches accepting funds for an off-site account, it does not explicitly teach the multi-operator functionality. Slater, which relates to ATM technology, allegedly provides this teaching. Slater discloses programming ATMs to accept deposits (cash or checks) at one location for accounts held at multiple, different off-site banks (distinct legal entities).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to improve the electronic funds account (EFA) systems of Bradford and Parrott would have looked to analogous technologies like ATMs for solutions. Given the similarities between gaming machine EFAs and ATM banking, a POSITA would have been motivated to apply Slater's teachings on handling transactions for multiple distinct entities to the gaming context. This would improve efficiency and reduce costs, providing a strong reason to program the gaming device to accept funds for different operators.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in applying Slater’s established multi-entity transaction logic to the gaming systems of Bradford and Parrott, as it represented a known business method applied to a similar technical environment.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 2) for claims 2, 4-7, and 9-15 based on Bradford in view of the general knowledge of a POSITA.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 2, 4-7, and 9-15 of the ’224 patent as unpatentable.