United States: In Re Smith: A Raw Deal For Inventors?

The recent decision in In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which the Federal Circuit affirmed the rejection of claims 1-18 as being ineligible for patent under 35 USC § 101, represents another example of the shrinking scope of patent-eligibility since the Supreme Court's Alice decision.1 As discussed below, this case concerned the patent-eligibility of method claims directed to the rules for a new wagering card game.

By way of background, the examiner rejected claims 1-18 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under § 101, applying the machine-or-transformation test described in Bilski.2 The examiner concluded that the claims represented "an attempt to claim a new set of rules for playing a card game," which "qualifies as an abstract idea." On appeal, the Board affirmed the rejection, applying the two-step test outlined in Alice, which had been decided in the interim. Applying step one, the Board determined that "independent claim 1 is directed to a set of rules for conducting a wagering game which . . . constitutes a patent-ineligible abstract idea." Applying the second step, the Board concluded that "shuffling and dealing cards are conventional in the gambling art," and as such, "do not add enough to the claims" to render them patent-eligible.

Claim 1 was considered representative. Despite the length of claim 1, the Board and later the court disregarded the specific limitations in holding that the claims were directed to an abstract idea:

  1. A method of conducting a wagering game comprising:

[a]) a dealer providing at least one deck of . . . physical playing cards and shuffling the physical playing cards to form a random set of physical playing cards;

[b]) the dealer accepting at least one first wager from each participating player on a player game hand against a banker's/dealer's hand;

[c]) the dealer dealing only two cards from the random set of physical playing cards to each designated player and two cards to the banker/dealer such that the designated player and the banker/dealer receive the same number of exactly two random physical playing cards;

[d]) the dealer examining respective hands to determine if any hand has a Natural 0 count from totaling count from cards, defined as the first two random physical playing cards in a hand being a pair of 5's, 10's, jacks, queens or kings;

[e]) the dealer resolving any player versus dealer wagers between each individual player hand that has a Natural 0 count and between the dealer hand and all player hands where a Natural 0 is present in the dealer hand, while the dealer exposes only a single card to the players;

[f]) as between each player and the dealer where neither hand has a Natural 0, the dealer allowing each player to elect to take a maximum of one additional card or standing pat on the initial two card player hand, while still having seen only one dealer card;

[g]) the dealer/banker remaining pat within a first certain predetermined total counts and being required to take a single hit within a second predetermined total counts, where the first total counts range does not overlap the second total counts range;

[h]) after all possible additional random physical playing cards have been dealt, the dealer comparing a value of each designated player's hand to a final value of the banker's/dealer's hand wherein said value of the designated player's hand and the banker's/dealer's hand is in a range of zero to nine points based on a pre-established scoring system wherein aces count as one point, tens and face cards count as zero points and all other cards count as their face value and wherein a two-digit hand total is deemed to have a value corresponding to the one's digit of the two-digit total;

[i]) the dealer resolving the wagers based on whether the designated player's hand or the banker's/dealer's hand is nearest to a value of 0.

The court's decision affirming the rejection has attracted attention as possibly having a far-reaching effect. For example, Prof. Dennis Crouch's article Federal Circuit: No New Card Game Patents Unless you Also Invent a New Deck observed that the Federal Circuit affirmed the rejection of claims 1-18 as being directed to an unpatentable abstract idea, holding that a wagering game is roughly identical to fundamental economic practices that the Supreme Court held to be abstract ideas in Alice and Bilski. The court found that the "purely conventional steps" associated with the physical act of playing cards do not "supply a sufficiently inventive concept." Moreover, in dicta, the court wrote that some card games will still be patent-eligible – perhaps those claiming "a new or original deck of cards."

Greg Stark's article In re Ray Smith: Gaming art patents now a bad bet similarly observes that the court appears to have invalidated all patents directed to the gaming arts that do not utilize some form of new material objects (e.g., new type of cards or new physical playing board). The author comments: "Until this decision, it was my understanding that game rules, such as embodied in these claims, were patent-eligible subject matter and it was the 'process' or rules that were evaluated to determine patentability."

Claims 20 and 21 were allowed by the examiner and thus not part of the appeal. Claim 20 was directed to the same method, with the exception that it required a video gaming system that used a processor rather than physical cards and a dealer to carry out the game.3 Moreover, the examiner's statement of reasons for allowance addressed the § 101 issue as well as how the allowed claims were distinguished over the closest prior art.4 Claim 20 provided as follows:

  1. (ALLOWED) A method of conducting a wagering game on a video gaming system comprising a processor, a video display and a player input controls comprising:

a) aprocessor acting as a dealer providing at least one virtual deck of playing cards;

b) the processor recognizing at least one first wager from a player input position participating in a player game hand against a banker's/dealer's hand;

c) the processor dealing only two virtual cards from the virtual set of playing cards to the player input position where a first wager has been recognized and two cards from the virtual set of playing cards to the banker/dealer such that the player input position and the banker/dealer receive the same number of exactly two cards;

d) the processor examining respective hands to determine if any hand has a Natural 0 count from totaling count of the virtual cards, defined as the first two cards in a hand being a pair of 5's, 10's, jacks, queens or kings;

e) the processor resolving any player versus dealer wagers between each individual player input position hand that has a Natural 0 count from total ing the virtual cards and between the dealer hand and all player input position hands where a Natural 0 i s present in the dealer hand from totaling the virtual cards, while the dealer exposes only a single virtual card to the player input position, wherein the each player input position not having a Natural 0 loses the first wager against a dealer Natural 0, and each player input position having a Natural 0 winning at least 1 .5/1 against a dealer not having a Natural 0;

f) as between each player input position and the dealer where neither hand has a Natural 0, the processor allowing each player input position to elect to take a maximum of one additional card from the virtual set of playing cards or standing pat on the initial two card player hand, while having seen only one dealer card;

g) the processor requiring the dealer/banker remaining pat within a first certain predetermined total counts and being required to take a single hit within a second predetermined total counts, where the first total counts range docs not overlap the second total counts range;

h) after all possible additional cards have been dealt from the virtual set of playing cards, the processor comparing a value of each designated player's input position hand to a final value of the banker's/dealer's hand wherein said value of the designated player's input position hand and the banker's/dealer's hand is in a range of zero to nine points based on a pre-established scoring system wherein aces count as one point, tens and face cards count as zero points and all other cards count as their face value and wherein a two-digit hand total is deemed to have a value corresponding to the one's digit of the two-digit total;

i) the dealer resolving the wagers based on whether the designated player's hand or the banker's/dealer's hand is nearest to a value of 0.

What are we to make of the allowance of claims 20 and 21? Are video game rules patent-eligible even though the same rules applied to a "physical" game are ineligible under the abstract idea exception? If so, is this because a "video gaming system" is more than a "conventional computer"? Or, should we assume the court would have held claims 20 and 21 ineligible if it had had the opportunity to review them?

Similarly, does the Board draw a distinction between physical game rules and video game rules in respect to eligibility for patent? Presumably the Board could have instructed the examiner to reject claims 20 and 21 on § 101 grounds, but chose not to do so.

Also, what should we make of the court's comment about the lack of inventiveness of claim 1 (the "purely conventional steps" associated with the physical act of playing cards do not "supply a sufficiently inventive concept"), despite the allowance of claim 20? How can the numerous functional limitations of claim 1 be dismissed by the court as "purely conventional" for § 101 purposes, even though the same limitations in claim 20 were deemed sufficient by the USPTO to confer novelty and non-obviousness over the prior for purposes of § 102/103?

Another question is whether allowed claims 20 and 21 are entitled to a presumption of eligibility in light of the examiner's rejection of claims 1-18. The recent district court decision in TNS Media Research5 suggests that patents are not entitled to a presumption of eligibility, drawing a distinction between a presumption of validity versus a presumption of eligibility.6 Whether or not the district court is correct, it would seem logical to impose a presumption of eligibility at least where the issue of eligibility was front and center before the examiner and the Board.

Alas, this decision is an example of the rash of recent decisions by the Federal Circuit and district courts leaving us with more questions than answers in the area of § 101 patent-eligibility. The Federal Circuit apparently has no clarifying ointment for this "Alice rash." If inventors/applicants and practitioners are to receive any help, either the Supreme Court or Congress (through legislation) will have to step in. In the meantime, stay tuned here for further developments.

Footnotes

1 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)

2 Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)

3 Claim 21 depended from claim 20 and recited, "further the processor determining that a player input position automatically loses the first wager if the player's input position initial total hand count is either 9 or is within the range of 8-9 or is in the range of 7-9."

4 The Final Office Action included the following statements:

In claims 20 and 21 the recitation of "a video gaming system comprising: a processor, a video display and a player input controls clearly recite a machine, clearly avoids a 101 non-statutory rejection.

Also, none of the cited references alone or in combination teach the claimed "the processor examining respective hands to determine in any hand has a Natural 0 count from totaling count of the virtual cards, defined as the first two cards in a hand being a pair of 5's, 10's, jacks, queens or kings", "a Natural 0 is present in the dealer hand from totaling the virtual cards, while the dealer exposes only a single virtual card to the player input position, wherein the each player input position not having a Natural 0 loses the first wager against the dealer Natural O", and "designating player's input position hand and the banker's/dealer's hand is in the range of zero to nine points based on a pre-established scoring system".

5 TNS Media Research, LLC v. Tivo Research & Analytics, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 4039 (SAS), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21218, 2016 BL 49844 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2016)

6 The court held that "[t]he presumption of validity – and its concomitant clear and convincing evidence standard – does not apply to section 101 claims." Drawing an analogy, the court noted that "[b]ecause no evidence outside the pleadings is considered in deciding a motion to dismiss or a motion for judgment on the pleadings, 'it makes little sense to apply a clear and convincing standard – a burden of proof – to such motions'" (quoting Modern Telecom Sys. LLC v. Earthlink, Inc., No. SA CV 14-0347-DOC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31388, 2015 WL 1239992, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2015)). The court reasoned that "[t]he same is true in the summary judgment context: like summary judgment on a claim of breach of an unambiguous contract, this Court's determination of patent-eligibility requires no extraneous information, [and] no factual record — only the patents themselves."

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.