T 0941/17 11-08-2021

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. The claimed invention

2.1 The claimed invention relates to a group of associated gaming devices, a method of operating them and an individual gaming device.

According to the application, it is desirable from time to time to have all the gaming devices in the group produce a winning outcome at the same time. Such an occurrence creates spontaneous enthusiasm with the players and draws attention to the gaming devices, increasing thus the chances that more users will start playing at those devices, increasing the profit of the devices' owner.

2.2 For this to happen it is important that all the gaming devices generate a winning game outcome at the same time. This would be simple when the devices were connected to a central server, which could trigger the generation of a winning outcome to all the devices. Depending on the location and the distribution of the gaming devices, however, it can be difficult to have them all hard-wired to a server. Wireless communication is possible, but not always reliable. The claimed invention proposes an implementation of the synchronised win without the need for the devices to be connected to a central server or to each other.

2.3 The forced winning outcome is generated by a lottery drawer, irrespective of the game played at the machine. Each machine comprises a database, a pseudo-random number generator, and a clock. Each entry in the database is associated to a specific time interval (e.g. 24 hours) and comprises a header containing a seed value for the pseudo-random number generator, and one or more winning numbers. When the specific time interval starts, the seed from the header of the corresponding database entry is fed to the pseudo-random generator. The clock draws the winning numbers from the corresponding database entry at predetermined times during the specific time interval. Each drawn winning number is fed to a comparator, which compares it to the generated pseudo-random numbers and if there is a match a winning signal is generated. By using a specific seed to the pseudo-random number generator, the "random" numbers are generated so that they match the winning numbers drawn by the clock from the database, and a winning outcome is obtained.

2.4 By using synchronised clocks and identical databases and pseudo-number generators in the associated gaming devices the simultaneous occurrence of the winning outcomes in all the devices can be achieved (see pages 1 to 3 of the published application).

3. Main Request

3.1 As explained the communication of 15 September 2020, the board agreed with the appellant that the clock of the claims did not correspond to the clock signal of the processor in the system of D1, as the examining division had held in the impugned decision (see point 4.3 of that communication). Moreover, the board preliminarily considered that document D5 was a more suitable starting point for the assessment of inventive step than D1 (see points 4.4 to 4.6).

The appellant did not object to the selection of D5 as closest prior art and the board does not see any reason to deviate from its preliminary opinion.

3.2 D5 describes a group of associated gaming machines (see Figure 1) which are set to generate a specific event (like a winning game outcome) at the same time without being connected to each other or to any central server.

Each of the gaming machines comprises a clock, following "real time", like Greenwich Time. Each gaming machine further comprises an event list, in which specific events are listed and are associated with specific times. The clocks of the gaming machines are synchronised and the event lists of the associate gaming machines are identical. A controller follows the clock and when specific times arrive, the corresponding events (from the list) are generated at the gaming machines simultaneously (see paragraphs [0003] to [0011], [0020] to [0023] and Figure 2).

3.2.1 In the terminology of claim 1 of the Main Request, D5 describes a group of associated gaming devices, each of them comprising a clock and a database having a plurality of entries (event list) associated to predetermined time intervals. The clock extracts the events from the database (list) for the time interval indicated by the clock. A winning outcome is generated simultaneously in each of the group of the associated gaming devices.

3.3 Comparing claim 1 with D5, the features distinguishing the claimed group of associated gaming devices from D5 appear to relate to how the forced winning game outcome is generated.

In claim 1 there is a lottery drawer using a pseudo-random number generator and a comparator. A database contains entries with lists of winning numbers for a specific time interval, like 24 hours, for example. At predetermined times, a seed from the specific database entry is provided to the pseudo random number generator, which generates a pseudo random number. At the same time a winning number is drawn from the list of winning numbers of the database entry. The pseudo random number and the winning number are fed to the comparator and, when the two numbers much, a winning signal will be generated.

In D5 there is no information about how the winning outcome is achieved or what game it relates to.

3.4 The board considers that the use of a draw of a lottery as a way to generate a winning outcome does not address any technical problem. In the board's view, the choice of a specific game to be played is an administrative decision unrelated to any technical problems or considerations.

3.5 A lottery draw is a well known game of chance: a player selects one or more numbers, there is a draw of one or more random numbers, and the player's numbers are compared to the drawn numbers to determine whether there is a match. If there is a match the player wins the lottery. It is also part of the game that, by manipulating the lottery drawer, predetermined number(s) can be "drawn" so that they match specific number(s) selected by the player(s).

3.6 In the board's opinion, the features distinguishing claim 1 from D5 relate to the implementation of such a lottery draw in the gaming device. The winning numbers in the database entries correspond to the numbers that a player would select. By providing a predetermined seed to the random number generator, the draw is "manipulated" in such a manner that predetermined pseudo-random numbers are generated, which are then compared with the winning numbers extracted from the database.

3.7 The skilled person (a computer programmer, expert in gaming devices) would seek for a way to implement the winning event in the gaming devices of D5. The idea to use a lottery drawer and the rules of the "manipulated" lottery draw are not technical features and will be given to the skilled person for implementation in the associated gaming devices of D5. The skilled person would carry out this task in an obvious manner using only common general knowledge, especially since no details are provided in the application that would indicate particular technical problems to be solved or technical considerations to take into account in the implementation of the lottery drawer.

3.8 In its letter of 23 April 2021 the appellant put forward an argument related to the event list of D5. Making reference to paragraphs [0006] and [0007] of D5 the appellant argued that the event list in the gaming machines of D5 comprises a finite list of events to occur in specific points in time. When the point in time of the last event in the list is reached, the event list must be replaced.

In contrast to that, in the claimed invention the lottery drawer used entries from a database to create the winning events using a pseudo random number generator. The events in the database did not define a series of fixed points in time. Rather, the series of the sequential entries in the database would wrap around to the beginning when the end of the entries in the database was reached (see lines 30 and 31 on page 4 of the published application).

The use of draw of lottery in the claim, thus solved the technical problem of making the event list of D5 reusable so that the present event list need not be replaced by a new event list when its end is reached.

3.8.1 The board is not convinced by this argument.

Firstly, the board considers that this argument is not related to the claimed invention. The claimed method defines how one winning event is generated simultaneously in all the associated gaming devices. The considerations that may relate to generating a series of such winning events during a longer period of time are irrelevant for the assessment of the claimed invention.

Secondly, even if the appellant's argument is taken into account, the board notes that it is not correct that the sequential entries (30) do not define fixed points in time. As it is explained in the application (see page 4, lines 17 to 21), the sequential entries (30) correspond to a predetermined time interval, like 24 hours, and with the setting of a first date for the first entry, they correspond to specific dates (see also Figure 3). Each entry 30 comprises a list of winning numbers to be drawn on the specific date (time interval).

Furthermore, as the application explains, the number of the sequential entries is chosen so that the same winning numbers are not drawn on the same date for the whole lifetime of the machine. In the example of Figure 3, there are 448 such entries covering more than one year of continuous play, if it is assumed that each entry corresponds to a day (page 4, lines 30 to 33). Hence, the size of the database with the sequential entries can be as long as it is desired, with the sole limit being the size of the corresponding memory of the machine.

The same applies for the machines of D5. The event list can be as long as it is desired, even covering the whole life time of the machine. Moreover, configuring the machine so that the event list wraps round to its beginning when the last event in the list is reached is considered to be an obvious alternative if the size of the memory was to be limited in some way.

The board, hence, does not see that such a feature would contribute to an inventive step even if it were to be included in claim 1 of the Main Request.

3.9 The board's conclusion is, therefore, that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the Main Request does not involve an inventive step within the meaning of Article 56 EPC.

4. Auxiliary Requests

4.1 Compared with claim 1 of the Main Request, claim 1 of the First Auxiliary Request defines additionally that

(i) when there is a winning outcome, the win is signalled to a player and a payout is made and

(ii) the winning outcome is generated simultaneously to all the associated gaming devices independently of whether or not the gaming devices are connected to a central controller.

4.1.1 Regarding feature (i), the board considers that informing a player that they won and paying them out is a standard feature of any gaming device, including those described in D5. Hence this feature is at least obvious if not implicitly disclosed in D5. Regarding feature (ii) the board notes that D5 states explicitly that the associated gaming devices are not connected to any central server (see for example paragraph [0020]). This feature is thus disclosed in D5.

4.1.2 The board concludes, thus, that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the First Auxiliary Request does not involve an inventive step.

4.2 Compared to claim 1 of the First Auxiliary Request, claim 1 of the Second Auxiliary Request defines additionally that each of the gaming devices comprises means for synchronising the clock.

4.2.1 This feature is disclosed in D5, see for example paragraph [0011] and claim 7.

4.3 The subject-matter of claim 1 of the Second Auxiliary Request does not involve an inventive step, either.

5. Since none of the requests on file is allowable, the appeal must be dismissed.