Peer-to-Patent Australia

Home > Archived Applications > 2009201818 > Discussion

Patent Application Number: 2009201818

This discussion forum is available to allow the community of reviewers to collaborate and discuss this patent application.

Discussion that is posted on this page will not be forwarded to IP Australia. If you wish to make comment on a prior art reference and wish that comment to be considered by the patent examiner, please do so by clicking on the relevant prior art reference.

Here are some tips to facilitate discussion.

Flagging a post as an 'action item' signals that further research is required.
Flagging SPAM and ABUSE helps to manage discussion
Placing double brackets around a reference to a claim or prior art will create a hyperlink to the original, for example: [[claim 1]] and [[prior art 2]].

Discussion (6)

View: Date|Claims|Prior Art|Action Item|

Facilitator's Comment

Action Item

Show without Noise

Mik Clarke (over 2 years ago)

The multiplier game is the claimed novel bit of this, so it should have the bulk of the description. Also interesting that they don't wipe the player out if they loose (that sort of thing tends to make them walk away). Dangling the greater than 100% rewards in front of them also looks attracted to keep them playing (and presumably putting money in to get back to the multiplier game).

Seems a lot like a varient of a Hi-Lo game - http://www.dynamiteidea.com/Games/HiLo_Games.asp

Jimmy Ti (over 2 years ago)

Hi Mik, make sure you file a proper prior art if you think there is enough relevance in the Hi-Lo game to be counted as a prior art. Discussion messages are not regarded by the examiner during the examination process.

Nicholas Josey (over 2 years ago)

I certainly agree that the novel part of an invention deserves the bulk of the emphasis in the application - in the area though, a differentiation in the multiplier is hardly particularly novel for the purposes of patent law.

I do see your point about allowing the player to remain in the game should they lose - I just don't think this is something that stands out as deserving of a monopoly. I am certain there are other games out there that follow the exact same pattern. We just have to find them!

Mik Clarke (over 2 years ago)

The standard model for a slot machine these4 days is a first reel game, leading through to a second bonus game (see the video poker section in the wikipedia entry for slot machines - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slot_machine ). This patent is covering a specific method of game play within the bonus game (guessing the attribute of a hidden symbol). As you can't actually patent a process it has to be cast in the form of patenting a slot machine that implements the bonus game. You'll find a lot of similar stuff in software related patents as they have to be cast in terms of a computer executing the software (and thus contain descriptions of obsolete minimalist computers). What we need to focus on is the 'guess the attribute with > 100% payoff' game.

Nicholas Josey (over 2 years ago)

I find it surprising that there is such an emphasis on the multiplier to be applied in this particular application. It hardly seems like that would be something which would differentiate it from the hundreds of other gambling games out there on the market.

I would imagine the multiplier/rate of reward would be largely similar from game to game?

Nicholas Josey (over 2 years ago)

Basically, this application is for a simple poker machine game. Consumers insert money into a slot in the front of the machine, which gives them a certain number of credits. These credits are then ‘wagered’ by the person. The wager is selected by pressing a button on the machine. The amount selected determines the amount the person can win.

Once the person elects to play, a random display of images is generated on the screen. If a winning combination is produced, an award associated with that combination and the amount wagered is given in any of the following:
• a number of credits;
• a cash payout;
• free games;
• entries into a jackpot draw

The consumer can choose to either gamble those rewards, or play on as per normal.

Should they choose to wager those credits, they are required to elect between the selection of the particular suit to come up next, or the colour of the card. If the consumer is correct, then their credits are increased depending on the multiplier applied. The higher the number of variables, the greater the multiplier applied. For example, the multiplier for a successful selection of the suit of the card to come up results in a multiplier of 5. A successful selection of the colour of a card gives a multiplier of 3. There are four options in relation to the suit, compared to just two with the colour of the card, therefore the multiplier is higher to reflect the increased difficulty.

If they are incorrect, the multiplier applied is less than 1 but varies in a similar fashion to the winning multiplier.

The claim does not provide for a particular method of implementing the gambling machine, just for the game itself along with any instructions that can be executed by a controller and the data signal those instructions pass through.

0 days left