Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v. International Game Technology

521 F.3d 1328 (2008)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The game disclosed in the '102 patent purportedly increases player interest in slot machines by providing the player with greater control over the definition of winning opportunities. It allows the player to define the winning opportunities based on symbols displayed on the top and side of a multi-line screen representing slot machine reels. The player can define numerous different arrangements that will allow the player to win for some subset of the 243 possible winning combinations. The player can do so by selecting symbol positions and thereby activating winning opportunities for combinations in which the symbols are not necessarily aligned with one another. The only constraint is that the selected combination must contain at least one symbol from each column. The district court observed that the key question, in this case, is the definiteness of the claim term 'game control means' or 'control means' that is used several times in claim 1. The court explained that the claim describes the 'game control means' as performing three functions: (1) to control images displayed on the display means; (2) to pay a prize when a predetermined combination of symbols matches the symbol positions selected by the player; and (3) to define the pay lines for the game according to each possible combination of the selected symbol positions. The term 'control means' is a means-plus-function term that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112 P 6. As such, the scope of that claim limitation had to be defined by the structure disclosed in the specification plus any equivalents of that structure; in the absence of structure disclosed in the specification to perform those functions, the claim limitation would lack specificity, rendering the claim as a whole invalid for indefiniteness under §112 P 2. The court made the ruling that there was no adequate disclosure of structure in the specification to perform those functions, regardless of how they were defined. P argued that the structure corresponding to the recited functions was a standard microprocessor-based gaming machine with 'appropriate programming,' the court noted that the specification contained no 'guidance to determine the meaning of 'standard microprocessor' or 'appropriate programming.'' The court held the specification did not create any specific structure or new machine because 'it does not set forth any specific algorithm' for performing the recited function. Because the specification of the '102 patent lacks 'any specific algorithm' or any 'step-by-step process for performing the claimed functions of controlling images on the slot machines [sic] video screen, paying a prize when a predetermined combination of symbols comes up or defining the pay lines for games,' the court held the asserted structure to be insufficient to satisfy section 112 paragraph 6. In addition, the district court held that the specification did not link the asserted structure to any of the claimed functions. The court held claim 1 invalid for that reason as well. P appealed.