Paigowdan
Paigowdan
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
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.
doubleluck
doubleluck
Joined: Jun 16, 2012
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 229
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"!
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 229
  • Posts: 6616
July 16th, 2014 at 9:21:08 AM permalink
Quote: Buzzard

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



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
Paradigm
Paradigm
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2225
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.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1317
  • Posts: 21611
July 16th, 2014 at 12:40:51 PM permalink
Quote: Paradigm

The 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.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Paradigm
Paradigm
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 2225
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.
doubleluck
doubleluck
Joined: Jun 16, 2012
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 229
July 16th, 2014 at 2:54:54 PM permalink
Quote: Paradigm

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.

That's true...however, to the Wizard's point, you may never even have to "go to battle" IF you get the right examiner.
jon
jon
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 128
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.

  • Jump to: