T 2184/12 - Gaming system

Key points

• A typical case about a gaming system.
• "It is common ground that, in all its versions, claim 1 includes aspects relating to rules for playing games. For example the concept of a feature game is based on game rules, such as one defining winnings. However it also contains technical features. For example the gaming system claimed comprises a display device, so it has overall technical character. Therefore all versions of claim 1 contain a mix of technical and non technical subject matter, a so called "mixed" invention. I
  n dealing with such "mixed" inventions, the Board adopts the approach as set out in T 1543/06 [] Thus, only those features that contribute to technical character are to be taken into account when assessing inventive step. That requirement cannot rely on excluded (non-technical) subject matter alone, however original it may be. 

T 2184/12 - link

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. On 11 June 2012 the appellant lodged an appeal against the examining division's decision of 12 April 2012 refusing the European patent application No. 07815223.8 and paid the prescribed fee simultaneously. The statement of grounds of appeal was received on 2 August 2012.

V. Independent claim 1 of the requests reads as follows:

Main request

"A gaming system for playing a game comprising a base game and a feature game, said base game being a spinning reel game comprising a plurality of spinning reels, said gaming system comprising:

a processor for controlling the play of the base game and the feature game; at least one display device connected to the processor for displaying one or more screens of the game; and

input means connected to the processor and the display device, for use by a player in controlling one or more aspects of the game, wherein the processor controls the game such that each symbol in a reel of the base game has a corresponding feature symbol corresponding to the feature game, and wherein feature strips comprising one or more of the feature symbols are displayed between the reels or below a corresponding row of base symbols, wherein during one or more reel spins of the base game the feature symbols within the feature strips are also spun so as to affect the result of the base game depending on where the feature symbols stop with respect to the base symbols of the reels, wherein each of the feature symbols has a corresponding further feature symbol which is displayed over a base symbol".

Reasons for the Decision

1. Background

1.1 The present invention (see published application, page 1, line 6 to page 2, line 11 and claim 1 in all its versions) concerns a spinning reel game. Such a game may have a basic game, a so called base game and a variant of this game with innovative features for maintaining a player's interest, called a feature game. The outcome of a feature game may for example be to double a player's credits.

In particular the invention relates to a gaming system for playing a game comprising a base game and a feature game, wherein the results of the base game depends on where symbols of base game reels stop relative to where feature game symbols stop after both are spun.

1.2 In the context of inventions concerned with games, Article 52 (2) (c) with Article 52 (3) EPC explicitly mentions schemes, rules and methods for playing games as being excluded from patentability as such.

As explained in T 0336/07, reasons 3.3.1. "a game in the usual sense of the word is characterized by ... its rules of play which govern the conduct and actions of the players during game play...[A] set of game rules thus determines how game play evolves from beginning to end in response to player actions and decisions...". That decision went on to emphasise that such a set of rules is "normally so perceived by the players involved, and as serving the explicit purpose of playing a game".

1.3 It is common ground that, in all its versions, claim 1 includes aspects relating to rules for playing games. For example the concept of a feature game is based on game rules, such as one defining winnings. However it also contains technical features. For example the gaming system claimed comprises a display device, so it has overall technical character. Therefore all versions of claim 1 contain a mix of technical and non technical subject matter, a so called "mixed" invention.

1.4 In dealing with such "mixed" inventions, the Board adopts the approach as set out in T1543/06 (Gameaccount), reasons 2.1-2.9, which is based foremost on T0641/00 (OJ EPO 2003, 352). Thus, only those features that contribute to technical character are to be taken into account when assessing inventive step. That requirement cannot rely on excluded (non-technical) subject matter alone, however original it may be. The mere technical implementation of something excluded cannot therefore form the basis for inventive step. A consideration of the particular manner of implementation must focus on any further technical advantages or effects associated with the specific features of implementation over and above the effects and advantages inherent in the excluded subject-matter.

2. Inventive step, starting from D3

In the following, the page numbers of D3 referred to are those at the top of each page.

2.1 In the Board's view, D3, disclosing as it does a spinning reel game system with additional indicator symbols (see abstract and figure 4), is a good starting point for assessing inventive step.

[...]

2.2 Following on from the above, the Board considers that the subject matter of claim 1 differs from D3 in that the processor controls the game such that

• each symbol in a reel of a base game has a corresponding further feature symbol, each of these symbols having a corresponding feature symbol displayed over;
• that feature strips comprising the feature symbols are displayed between or below the corresponding row of base symbols;
• and that when the reels of the base game are spun the feature strips are also spun to effect the result of the base game.

In that these features pertain to the process control they are all technical.

2.3 However, in the Board's opinion, this modified process control in part constitutes the straightforward technical implementation of what is essentially a gaming scheme.

The idea of a feature game played by means of additional reels or feature strips with features symbols that are spun with the base game reels and which affect the result of the base game depending on their stop position is a typical gaming scheme, prescribing the mechanics or rules of game play. In itself such a scheme cannot provide the basis for inventive step, because it is excluded subject-matter, Article 52(2)(c) EPC. Nor, as explained above, can inventive step in the technical sense rely on the mere fact that such per se excluded subject-matter is technically implemented. Only the particular manner of technical implementation might possibly provide a basis for inventive step in the sense of Article 52(1) and 56 EPC. In the present case, implementation is merely by means of a processor which is adapted to carry out the various functions and steps prescribed by the gaming scheme. Such a purely functionally defined implementation is obvious for the skilled person, in this case a software programmer, when given the task of realizing the spin reel game concept with base and feature game reels on a computer controlled gaming console as in D3. He would naturally and without any ado configure the controller to emulate on the display the necessary spin reels (base and feature game) in the required configuration and operation.

2.4 The remaining part of the above differences over D3 which does not arise from game rules, concerns the feature of the control displaying feature symbols of the feature strip reel so as to have a corresponding further feature symbol displayed over a base symbol. In this manner the game play condition of the feature game is in effect communicated twice to the player as can be inferred from page 19, line 16, to page 20, line 2 of the application as published. This duplicates game status information, because the player can see the same correlation from a copy of the feature symbol displayed over the base symbol (see for example published application, figure 8, cross-hairs 806 and 811).

[...]

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.