Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[poker101]

Has anyone had any experience in patenting table games, such as poker games, Post Bilski?  Any information or guidance would be greatly appreciated.

[JimIvey]

I don't think Bilski applies to table games at all.  Move a piece or card?  You've transformed matter.

Bilski really pertains to computer-implemented inventions that are not implemented in a computer.  Still haven't quite grokked that.

Regards.

[George White]

I have a recent 101 rejection for a board game based on Bilski. The examiner doesn't see moving a token from one square to the next as transforming the state of an article and told me everything in the area as well as everything in card/betting games are getting rejected under Bilski and until some of them go through the board everything will keep getting rejected.  At an AIPLA CLE webinar on "post-Bilski" I asked about board games - the expert speakers' answered "that seems like a good test case". Not what I wanted to hear.

---George

[JimIvey]

I have a recent 101 rejection for a board game based on Bilski. The examiner doesn't see moving a token from one square to the next as transforming the state of an article and told me everything in the area as well as everything in card/betting games are getting rejected under Bilski and until some of them go through the board everything will keep getting rejected. 

Ridiculous.  Amazingly ridiculous.  There's absolutely nothing in Bilski to suggest that moving an article is not a change in its state -- nothing at all.

Well, honestly, when dealing with the USPTO, every once in a while you gotta just lube up, bend over, and try to think of a happy place.

Good luck to you.

Regards.

[MYK]

To the original poster,

Here is a very detailed, recently decided post-Bilski 101 Case concerning a card game:

http://des.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2010005500-12-06-2010-1

Best look for alternatives...

Unfortunately, the link goes to a temporary file which has already been deleted.  Do you have the application number, inventor name(s), or other details saved?

[MYK]

   I don't know what happened, it still worked for me.  Here is the serial no. 10/422,395 .

Thanks;  much appreciated!   I guess it was some sort of glitch.  I tried it again when I saw your reply and it worked.

[Isaac]

Here is a very detailed, recently decided post-Bilski 101 Case concerning a card game:

http://des.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2010005500-12-06-2010-1

Best look for alternatives...

I highly recommend a review of the file history for this case.   The applicant filed the initial appeal brief in late 2005.  Part of the delay in getting an opinion was due to a suspect dismissal of the applicant's appeal.  But 5 years after filing a brief and seven years after filing the initial application, neither the applicant nor the appellant were able to address 101 law existing at the time the case was decided.

[Isaac]

  Shouldn't that case have been remanded, again?.

I believe the Board made the correct call in this case.  The Board did resolve the 103 questions in the applicant's favor.  If it is possible for the applicant to address the 101 issues, the applicant should get a patent in short order. 

What is pretty funky is that the opinion indicates that the examiner was affirmed despite the fact that the examiner was wrong about nearly everything.   The Board did designate their 101 rejection as a new ground which is the favorable to the applicant.

At first I was peeved at the Board's dismissal of the appeal, but the delay did give all sides a chance to look at the development of the law, and the final Board decision came out after Bilski was decided.  Looks like a win for the applicant to me.   I'll bet some other applicants have had their cases decided on bad 101 law.

As far as the appellant arguing the de facto invalidation of older patents in view of the examiner's other allowed patents, I don't think that position helped the appellant.

As a famous flying squirrel used to say, "That trick never works"



 

[/quote]

[currentexaminer]

Well, honestly, when dealing with the USPTO, every once in a while you gotta just lube up, bend over, and try to think of a happy place.

First time I've laughed out loud on this board.

[Isaac]

I don't think Bilski applies to table games at all.  Move a piece or card?  You've transformed matter

Bilski applies to every method claim.  All methods claim have to be passed through a Bilski analysis.  Neither transforming matter or performance on a machine guarantees that a claim recites patentable subject matter.

[khazzah]

I don't think Bilski applies to table games at all.  Move a piece or card?  You've transformed matter

Bilski applies to every method claim.  All methods claim have to be passed through a Bilski analysis.  Neither transforming matter or performance on a machine guarantees that a claim recites patentable subject matter.

I agree with Isaac's analysis. And restate as: Under Bilski v Kappos, a claim to an abstract idea isn't patentable. Period. Passing the MoT test is not a safe harbor.

I'm interested in what "transformation of an article" really means.

The PTO Bilski Guidelines say that moving an article from one location in physical space to another is very low on the transformation scale. In contrast, a transformation into a "different function or use" is high on the transformation scale.

Where does this distinction come from? Sure, the claim in Diehr involved transforming raw, uncured rubber into molded, cured rubber products. And yes, that claim was found to pass 101. But who says that *this* level of transformation is the minimum required?

In one sense of the word, moving an object from one location in physical space to another does change the object's state -- if "state" is understood to include the object's location. Where did the PTO get the idea that state does not include location?

[JimIvey]

I don't think Bilski applies to table games at all.  Move a piece or card?  You've transformed matter

Bilski applies to every method claim.  All methods claim have to be passed through a Bilski analysis.  Neither transforming matter or performance on a machine guarantees that a claim recites patentable subject matter.

Okay, stated a different way, moving an article has changed its state and therefore clearly passes the test laid out in Bilski, whatever that test may be.

Nothing in Bilski removed "process" from Section 101.

Regards.

[George White]

Invent Or?

thanks for posting this - I did a search on WestLaw last week and came up dry.

---George