PTAB

IPR2019-00319

William Hill US Holdco Inc v. CG Technology Development LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Kiosk for Gaming
  • Brief Description: The ’098 patent discloses a gaming kiosk that uses a two-tiered verification system to identify a patron before offering gaming activities. The system employs an identification scanner to read a document (e.g., a driver's license) and a biological sensor (e.g., a camera) to capture biometric data for verification.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-15, 17-19, and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Bradford

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bradford (Patent 6,612,928).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Bradford, issued nearly a decade before the ’098 patent's filing date, discloses every element of the challenged claims. Bradford teaches a gaming device within a cabinet (the claimed "kiosk") that uses two authenticators to verify a patron. The "first authenticator" in Bradford, such as a driver's license with machine-readable data, is read by a "first authenticator reader," which corresponds to the claimed identification scanner. The "second authenticator" is biometric data (e.g., facial geometry or a fingerprint) read by a biometric reader, which corresponds to the claimed biological sensor. Petitioner asserted that Bradford’s microprocessor-controlled system verifies the patron using both authenticators and, upon successful verification, enables gaming activities, thus meeting all limitations of independent claims 2 and 15.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that Bradford's disclosure was not considered during the original prosecution of the ’098 patent. The argument posited that Bradford’s "gaming device" with a two-factor authentication system is functionally and structurally identical to the claimed "kiosk for gaming."

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 2, 4-6, 8-15, 17-19, and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Bradford in view of Parrott

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bradford (Patent 6,612,928) and Parrott (Application # 2005/0054417).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: As an alternative to anticipation, Petitioner argued that even if Bradford does not explicitly disclose every detail, the claimed invention would have been obvious over Bradford combined with Parrott. Bradford provided the foundational system of a gaming machine with a two-factor authentication process using an ID and biometrics. Parrott was introduced to supply specific teachings that may be considered absent or less explicit in Bradford. Specifically, Parrott discloses a gaming machine with a scanner designed to accept and read identification documents like a driver's license, using optical character recognition to convert the information to digital form for network transmission. Parrott also explicitly teaches common gaming machine components like currency acceptors, currency dispensers, and credit card acceptors, which are recited in dependent claims 11 and 12.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Bradford and Parrott because both references are in the same field of casino gaming systems and address the same fundamental problems of patron identification and transaction management. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Parrott's well-understood scanning and payment technologies into Bradford's authentication framework to improve the system's functionality and user convenience. This combination was argued to be a simple integration of known elements from the same field to achieve a predictable result.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in combining the references, as it involved applying conventional scanner and payment technologies (Parrott) to an existing authentication system (Bradford) within a gaming machine, a well-established technical environment.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an alternative obviousness challenge based on Bradford in view of the knowledge of a POSITA. This ground argued that to the extent any of Bradford’s teachings were considered to be in separate embodiments, a POSITA would have found it obvious to combine them into a single, standalone system to provide faster and better service to players.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Kiosk for Gaming by Patrons": Petitioner proposed this term, which appears in every challenged claim, be construed to mean "a cabinet or structure for gaming interaction with human patrons." This construction was based on the ’098 patent’s description of the kiosk as a "housing designed [to] hold a processor, identification scanner, and biological sensor." Petitioner argued this construction is important because it aligns directly with the "gaming device" housed in a "cabinet" as disclosed in the Bradford reference, thereby supporting the anticipation and obviousness arguments.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 2, 4-6, 8-15, 17-19, and 21-23 of the ’098 patent as unpatentable.