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 Topics
 
Related Articles
 
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions