Riverboat Roulette - Patent Approved!
July 15th, 2014 at 3:23:02 PM
permalink
Great news! Our patent for Riverboat Roulette was issued today. I truly appreciate the skill, expertise, and strategy employed by our attorney Jon Muskin. I'm certain that if we hadn't had the pleasure of working with him, the patent wouldn't have made it through the USPTO. Thanks Jon -- YOU ROCK!
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8,777,223.PN.&OS=PN/8,777,223&RS=PN/8,777,223
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8,777,223.PN.&OS=PN/8,777,223&RS=PN/8,777,223
July 15th, 2014 at 3:30:26 PM
permalink
Congratulations on the patent! Gaming patents are not easy to get these days.
I saw your game at the Golden Gate after the McNugget Challenge on July 7. They ran out of rule cards, unfortunately, but I took a voice memo of the pertinent rules.
Would you have any pictures of the game I could use on my site?
I saw your game at the Golden Gate after the McNugget Challenge on July 7. They ran out of rule cards, unfortunately, but I took a voice memo of the pertinent rules.
Would you have any pictures of the game I could use on my site?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
July 15th, 2014 at 3:38:24 PM
permalink
Congratulations and best continued luck to you both.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
July 15th, 2014 at 5:26:22 PM
permalink
Fantastic news, doubleluck~! Could not be happier for you both.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
July 15th, 2014 at 5:47:48 PM
permalink
Who said nice guys finish last? Thanks a gain for you service.
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
July 15th, 2014 at 11:35:35 PM
permalink
Congratulations, Guys.
Stephen Au-Yeung (Legend of New Table Games®) NewTableGames.com
July 16th, 2014 at 12:15:18 AM
permalink
Congrats!!!
July 16th, 2014 at 6:07:11 AM
permalink
What a remarkable accomplishment in this day and age! Congratulations to you guys for sticking it out and best of luck with RR. Also, way to go Jon!!!
"Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm." -- Winston Churchill
July 16th, 2014 at 7:35:18 AM
permalink
Congrats on this allowance & well done Jon. I wonder if this signifies a change at the USPTO or if the allowance relates to the fact that RR uses a special roulette wheel which qualifies as a machine under the MoT test?
July 16th, 2014 at 7:46:04 AM
permalink
I have read this Supreme Court decision from June 19 2014 and am more confused than ever. But in my case, that is not anything new.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
July 16th, 2014 at 8:01:09 AM
permalink
The door is opening on this for us.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
July 16th, 2014 at 9:11:08 AM
permalink
Thanks for the congratulatory remarks folks. Jon's strategy was key to us getting the allowance. Since we had no electronic component outlined in the original application, I believe exactly what he said, "We got lucky"!
July 16th, 2014 at 9:21:08 AM
permalink
Quote: BuzzardI have read this Supreme Court decision from June 19 2014 and am more confused than ever. But in my case, that is not anything new.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf
The decision of the court was that use of a computer to perform calculations from already existing abstract methods did not make an abstract idea patent eligible just on the basis of a physical(computer) medium doing the work.
That would seem to go against the attempts of gaming patent lawyers to add a computerized version of a table game to pass through the patent. I'm not really sure this helps table game inventors.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
July 16th, 2014 at 12:21:16 PM
permalink
I believe the concept that came out of this case that helps game inventors is the statement that "abstract ideas", for which the USPTO routinely determines a set of game rules to be, can, if correctly presented in the claim language "contain an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application"
In my opinion, the SC in Bilski stated that the MoT was not the only test to determine if patent claims were related to an abstract idea and the Alice case goes further in stating that even abstract ideas can be "transformed" into a patent eligible application given sufficient inventive concept delineation in the claim language.
The case is helpful, but not definitive in getting live table games what is needed.
In my opinion, the SC in Bilski stated that the MoT was not the only test to determine if patent claims were related to an abstract idea and the Alice case goes further in stating that even abstract ideas can be "transformed" into a patent eligible application given sufficient inventive concept delineation in the claim language.
The case is helpful, but not definitive in getting live table games what is needed.
July 16th, 2014 at 12:40:51 PM
permalink
Quote: ParadigmThe case is helpful, but not definitive in getting live table games what is needed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the USPO does not respect precedents. So much of it comes down to the examiner you get. Some are very agreeable and others reject almost everything.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
July 16th, 2014 at 12:48:15 PM
permalink
Agreed, but the Examiner level is just the first battle. At some point the prosecution makes it to the appeals level or court system where precedent and SC court rulings do matter.
July 16th, 2014 at 2:54:54 PM
permalink
That's true...however, to the Wizard's point, you may never even have to "go to battle" IF you get the right examiner.Quote: ParadigmAgreed, but the Examiner level is just the first battle. At some point the prosecution makes it to the appeals level or court system where precedent and SC court rulings do matter.
July 17th, 2014 at 4:10:19 PM
permalink
Thanks for the kind words, doubleluck. To clarify what doubleluck said earlier, this was a patent not originally filed by me and so the prior attorney didn't include electronic embodiments (malpractice?) As Wizard said, the examiner you get assigned to is critical. The Riverboat Roulette patent number even has '777' in it! The Luck Bros are on a roll.
