`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`Playtika Ltd. and Playtika Holding Corp.,
`Petitioners
`v.
`
`NexRF Corp.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________________________________
`
`Case IPR2021-00951
`Patent 8,747,229
`__________________________________
`
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF NEIL SPENCER
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner NexRF Exhibit 2008, Page 1 of 88
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................4
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Background and Qualifications............................................................................................4
`
`Information Considered .....................................................................................................13
`
`III.
`
`Legal Standard ...................................................................................................................14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................................14
`
`Obviousness ...........................................................................................................16
`
`IV.
`
`State of the Art ...................................................................................................................19
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Gaming Systems in 2001 .......................................................................................19
`
`Overview of the Technology of the ’229 Patent ....................................................26
`
`Overview of the Prior Art ......................................................................................31
`
`1.
`
`Joshi ...........................................................................................................31
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Mr. Friedman’s Figure 1 ................................................................40
`
`The technical difficulties associated with modifying
`Joshi ...............................................................................................43
`
`2.
`
`Finlayson ....................................................................................................68
`
`V.
`
`Non-Obviousness of the Challenged Claims .....................................................................69
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Joshi does not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed centralized
`gaming server configured to access the memory module and
`communicate the plurality of images associated with at least one
`random game outcome in claims 1, 9 and 17 .........................................................69
`
`A Note on Nielson and Wiltshire ...........................................................................74
`
`Joshi does not enable the claimed “centralized gaming server” in
`claims 1, 9, and 17 .................................................................................................75
`
`Joshi fails to disclose, teach, or suggest “a paytable module
`associated with the centralized gaming server” in claims 1, 9, and
`17
`79
`
`1.
`
`Joshi Does Not Disclose the Paytable Module as Applied to
`Claims 9 and 17 .........................................................................................83
`2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner NexRF Exhibit 2008, Page 2 of 88
`
`

`

`E.
`
`Ground 2 – Joshi Combined With Finlayson .........................................................85
`
`1.
`
`A POSA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Combine
`Joshi and Finlayson ....................................................................................85
`
`F.
`
`Grounds 3-8 Rely on Grounds 1-2, and Are Inadequate for the
`Same Reasons ........................................................................................................87
`
`Conclusion .........................................................................................................................88
`
`
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner NexRF Exhibit 2008, Page 3 of 88
`
`

`

`INTRODUCTION
`I have been retained by Haug Partners LLP on behalf of Patent Owner
`
`1.
`
`NexRF as an independent expert in connection with the above-captioned matter. I
`
`have been asked to analyze and opine on technical topics concerning U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,747,229. My opinions, expressed in this declaration, concern issues related
`
`to patentability, such as the state of the art, the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`similarities and differences between the ’229 patent and the prior art, and the
`
`knowledge of a hypothetical person of skill in the art. My opinions are based on
`
`my personal and professional experience, and my understanding as an expert in the
`
`field. My qualifications and credentials are presented in Section I, below.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for the services I provide at an hourly rate of
`
`$350 per hour. This compensation is not contingent upon my performance, the
`
`outcome of this inter partes review or any other proceeding, or any issues involved
`
`in or related to this inter partes review.
`
`I.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`I am an internationally recognized expert and advisor to gaming
`3.
`
`operators and regulators with more than 33 years of experience in gaming
`
`machines and systems, gaming technology, technical standards, legislation and
`
`regulations, and gaming business operations in jurisdictions including Australia,
`
`USA, Canada, New Zealand, Macau, and the United Kingdom.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Patent Owner NexRF Exhibit 2008, Page 4 of 88
`
`

`

`4.
`
`I am the founder and managing director of Gaming Consultants
`
`International, a gaming industry consulting company established in 1988, and
`
`located in Sandringham, Victoria, Australia.
`
`5.
`
`I have a Bachelor's Degree in Applied Science (Physics and
`
`Computer Science) from the Caulfield Institute of Technology (now Monash
`
`University). The degree was awarded in 1979.
`
`6.
`
`I have been involved in the gaming industry for some 33 years.
`
`Prior to that, I had nine years of experience in the Aerospace & Defense industry
`
`associated with large scale systems development and integration projects.
`
`7. My professional career in gaming is elaborated in following
`
`paragraphs, however in summary my expertise and experience includes more than
`
`fifteen years of experience in gaming machine hardware specification and design,
`
`more than twenty years of experience in gaming machine game design,
`
`specification and development, more than thirteen years of experience in the
`
`development and implementation of gaming machine communication protocols
`
`and networked gaming systems, more than four years of experience in on-line
`
`gaming systems and legislation, and more than twenty five years of experience in
`
`technical standards and regulation for gaming machines, games and networked
`
`gaming systems.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Patent Owner NexRF Exhibit 2008, Page 5 of 88
`
`

`

`8. My first involvement in the casino and gaming industry was in
`
`1988 when I was employed by Arthur Andersen & Co. as a management
`
`consultant and fulfilled the role as Project Manager for the Tabaret cashless
`
`gaming development project being undertaken by the Victorian Totalizator
`
`Agency Board (TAB).
`
`9.
`
`The Tabaret concept incorporated gaming terminals based on
`
`Commodore Amiga PC platforms networked via an Ethernet network to a
`
`networked gaming system. Some of the essential elements of Tabaret included
`
`downloadable games, fault tolerant cashless gaming and accounting. As Project
`
`Manager, I was responsible for overall system design guidance, management of
`
`various sub-projects in Australia and New York, game design, and
`
`development and implementation planning.
`
`10.
`
` I later managed all technical activities associated with the TAB's
`
`gaming systems, wagering systems, on-course totalizator systems,
`
`communications networks, and quality assurance activities. In relation to
`
`gaming systems and technologies, I was required to provide design guidance to
`
`the Tabaret gaming project, including internal staff and external developers.
`
`This included establishing technical relationships with gaming equipment
`
`vendors such as Aristocrat and IGT, and also with gaming regulatory bodies
`
`and testing agencies in Australia and overseas.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Patent Owner NexRF Exhibit 2008, Page 6 of 88
`
`

`

`11. Between 1988 and 1991, I frequently travelled to Las Vegas,
`
`Nevada and Atlantic City, New Jersey on behalf of the Victorian TAB to study
`
`casino gaming operations and gaming technologies. In 1988, there were no
`
`technical standards or regulations governing gaming machine operations in
`
`Victoria. One of my responsibilities was to represent the Victorian TAB in
`
`relation to the development of technical standards and performance criteria for
`
`the Tabaret games, gaming machines, network, and networked gaming systems.
`
`12. The Tabaret project was completed in 1990 with the successful
`
`opening of the Tabaret at Rialto in Melbourne. Between 1990 and 1992, I was
`
`further contracted by the Victorian TAB in the role of Manager, Gaming
`
`Systems. This role included responsibility for adding wide area network
`
`capabilities to the Tabaret system concept and ongoing game and system
`
`development for the Tabaret at Rialto operation.
`
`13.
`
`In 1991, I became responsible for overseeing the development of
`
`conventional "spinning reel" and electronic card games for the Tabaret system.
`
`This responsibility included construction of game pay-tables, game rules and
`
`images.
`
`14. Between 1990 and 1992, during the development of the wide area
`
`Tabaret system, I represented the Victorian TAB on a government committee
`
`charged with the development of technical standards for gaming machine and
`
`
`
`7
`
`Patent Owner NexRF Exhibit 2008, Page 7 of 88
`
`

`

`gaming system operations. The output of this committee has since been
`
`recognized as some of the core elements of the Australia/New Zealand Gaming
`
`Machine National Standards.
`
`15. Between 1990 and 1992, I also assisted Victorian government
`
`ministers during the development of legislation related to the operation of wide
`
`area gaming machines in Victoria.
`
`16. Between 1991 and 1993, I represented the Victorian TAB in Reno,
`
`Nevada on numerous occasions to oversee progress on the development of a
`
`wide area monitoring, control and jackpot system being developed by IGT.
`
`This role included assessing system design, progress monitoring, and advising
`
`on specific technical and compliance issues prevailing in Victoria.
`
`17.
`
`In 1993, I was contracted by Crown Limited to manage the
`
`specification and selection of gaming machines, games, gaming systems, and
`
`jackpot systems for the Crown Galleria Casino in Victoria. This role included
`
`writing system functional specifications, communicating with gaming machine
`
`and gaming system vendors, implementing planning at the casino site, and
`
`taking overall responsibility for final commissioning and approval of gaming
`
`machine and jackpot operations at the casino. An early element of my role on
`
`the Crown project was to review and select gaming systems that could meet
`
`Crown's requirements. This task included surveying gaming monitoring and
`
`
`
`8
`
`Patent Owner NexRF Exhibit 2008, Page 8 of 88
`
`

`

`jackpot systems in Australia and the USA. During that time, I was briefed by
`
`system vendors such as Aristocrat, IGT, VLC, SyCo and CDS on gaming
`
`systems capabilities including accounting, monitoring, player tracking and
`
`jackpots.
`
`18.
`
`In 1994, prior to the opening of the Crown Galleria Casino, I was
`
`Crown's representative on a committee to develop unique technical standards for
`
`gaming machine and system operations in a casino environment. During the
`
`Crown Casino project, I again travelled to gaming machine, gaming system and
`
`equipment vendors in the United States to study and attend briefings on gaming
`
`machines, systems and jackpot programs. I was also required to establish
`
`relationships with US based gaming equipment testing companies as well as
`
`Australian testing organizations.
`
`19.
`
`In 1995, I was contracted by Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. (Harrah's)
`
`(now Caesars Entertainment Corporation) to assist in the selection and integration
`
`of gaming machines, gaming systems and jackpots for the Harrah's Sky City
`
`Casino in Auckland, New Zealand. The role for Harrah's included principal
`
`responsibility for initial gaming machine specification, system and jackpot system
`
`set-up, installation, commissioning and go-live. This included continuous liaison
`
`with gaming machine and gaming system vendors including Aristocrat and IGT in
`
`Australia, and Bally Systems and Mikohn Gaming in the United States.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Patent Owner NexRF Exhibit 2008, Page 9 of 88
`
`

`

`20. As part of my responsibilities in relation to commissioning and go-
`
`live of the casino, I was Harrah's appointed technical representative in relation to
`
`approvals and liaised with the New Zealand Casino Control Authority and related
`
`testing companies. This included overall technical compliance matters and
`
`development of internal control procedures for gaming machines and Keno
`
`operations.
`
`21.
`
`In 1995, I was also contracted by The Federal Group in Tasmania
`
`to develop specifications for a statewide gaming machine monitoring system
`
`and to assist in the selection of a system vendor. This contract was later extended
`
`to incorporate providing technical oversight to the system implementation and
`
`development of operating procedures and controls. I undertook a similar project
`
`for Tab Limited in New South Wales between 1999 and 2001.
`
`22.
`
`In 1996, I was contracted again by Crown Limited as Technical
`
`Director for the establishment of gaming machine and system operations at the
`
`Crown permanent casino in Melbourne. This became the permanent site for
`
`Crown Casino operations after the closure of Crown's temporary casino known
`
`as the Galleria Casino at the World Trade Centre in Melbourne. This role
`
`included management of specifications, functionality, operation, integration and
`
`implementation of gaming machines, the DACOM 6000 Slot Monitoring
`
`System (incorporating Acres Bonusing), and related jackpot signage. I also
`
`
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner NexRF Exhibit 2008, Page 10 of 88
`
`

`

`assisted Crown in the development of functional specifications for the Acres
`
`Bonusing components of DACOM 6000 and provided a central point of liaison
`
`between all gaming machine suppliers who included, Aristocrat, IGT, VLC,
`
`Bally, Olympic and Video.
`
`23.
`
`In 1998, I was also contracted by Acres Gaming, Inc. in Nevada
`
`USA to provide project management of the implementation of the Acres slot
`
`monitoring and bonusing system at Mandalay Bay Casino in Las Vegas. This
`
`role included overall management for system design, development of new
`
`accounting and bonusing modules, integration with existing casino systems, and
`
`installation and commissioning.
`
`24. Over the years, I have provided similar project management for other
`
`new and established casinos, including Grand Casino Noumea (two casinos in
`
`Noumea),
`
`25. Between 2001 and 2003, I was involved in the establishment of on-
`
`line, internet gaming products for The Federal Group of Tasmania and Action
`
`On-line Entertainment of Long Beach, California, US. In both of these projects,
`
`my role included technical project supervision, development of internal
`
`operating and control procedures, game specifications, management of
`
`regulatory approval testing and supplier liaison.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Patent Owner NexRF Exhibit 2008, Page 11 of 88
`
`

`

`26.
`
`In 2001, I was contracted by Aristocrat Technologies Australia to
`
`provide consulting advice on global gaming machine and system requirements
`
`as part of a project charged with the specification and planning for new
`
`systems.
`
`27. Between 2001 and 2004, I was contracted by Crown Limited to
`
`provide specialist technical advice on gaming machine performance, new game
`
`concepts, bonusing, and systems performance. This involved ongoing work with
`
`a range of gaming machine developers and suppliers in relation to game design
`
`characteristics, performance and technical specifications. During this period, I
`
`was responsible for the specification and implementation management of
`
`games, protocols and systems impact for Crown's gaming machine business,
`
`including game changes required due to changes in government legislation and
`
`regulations.
`
`28. Between 2004 and 2008, I was contracted by Crown Limited to
`
`assist in the analysis, acquisition and development of casino gaming businesses in
`
`Australia, Macau, Canada, the United States and Europe. These projects
`
`included analyzing gaming machine performance, specifications and
`
`legislation in each market.
`
`29.
`
`In 2008, I joined Crown Limited as a permanent employee in the
`
`role of Senior Vice President, Gaming Systems & Innovation. This role
`
`
`
`12
`
`Patent Owner NexRF Exhibit 2008, Page 12 of 88
`
`

`

`included developing concepts for unique game development and system based
`
`bonusing for gaming machines in Crown owned properties.
`
`30.
`
`In 2010, I was appointed as Executive General Manager, Gaming
`
`Machines at Crown Casino with responsibility for the operation, revenue and profit
`
`performance of Crown's gaming machine business in Melbourne. In this role my
`
`responsibilities included oversight of game performance, specification changes,
`
`in-game bonusing development, and implementation of regulatory change.
`
`31.
`
`In 2014, I was appointed as Senior Vice President, VIP Customer
`
`Relations in a role focused on customer development.
`
`32.
`
`In April 2016, I stood down from permanent employment with
`
`Crown and resumed my gaming consulting practice.
`
`33. My Curriculum Vitae can be found in Exhibit 2009.
`
`II.
`
`Information Considered
`I read the ’229 patent and the corresponding prosecution history, the
`34.
`
`Petition and its exhibits, as well as the Board’s institution decision. The
`
`documents referenced in this declaration, which I have read in their entirety,
`
`include:
`
`• Ex. 1001 (’229 patent)
`
`• Ex. 1003 (Friedman Declaration)
`
`• Ex. 1005 (Joshi)
`
`
`
`13
`
`Patent Owner NexRF Exhibit 2008, Page 13 of 88
`
`

`

`• Ex. 1009 (Finlayson)
`
`• Ex. 1016 (Nielson)
`
`• Ex. 1017 (Wiltshire)
`
`• Ex. 2003 (Joshi’s Prosecution History)
`
`• Ex. 2010 (Excerpted Aristocrat Mk4 Service Manual)
`
`• Ex. 2011 (Excerpted SAS Protocol Version 6.01)
`
`• Ex. 2012 (Friedman Deposition)
`
`• Paper 14, Institution Decision
`
`
`I have also read portions of the other exhibits cited in the 951 Petition.
`
`
`
`New Exhibit Description
`
`Exhibit
`CV of Neil Spencer
`2009
`2010 Aristocrat Mk4/5XR Service Manual (excerpts)
`2011
`Slot Accounting System (“SAS”) Protocol Version 6.01
`2012 Deposition of Mr. Friedman, dated March 8, 2022
`
`
`
`35.
`
`I am also aware of other information generally available to, and relied
`
`upon, by persons of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time, including technical
`
`reference materials.
`
`III. Legal Standard
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I am a technical expert qualified to offer technical opinions about
`
`A.
`36.
`
`gaming system design, architecture, and implementation, including the systems
`
`
`
`14
`
`Patent Owner NexRF Exhibit 2008, Page 14 of 88
`
`

`

`described and claimed in the ’229 patent, Joshi patent (Ex. 1005), Finlayson patent
`
`application (Ex. 1009), and other references at issue in this case, rather than legal
`
`opinions. I understand the legal framework to be applied in this inter partes
`
`proceeding is to assess whether the claimed invention of the ’229 patent would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in 2001, in
`
`view of the prior art identified by petitioner Playtika. I have applied this legal
`
`framework in developing the technical opinions expressed in this Declaration.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that a POSA is a hypothetical person skilled in the art,
`
`who is not a judge, or a layperson, or a genius in the art at hand. This person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art is an individual who is presumed to be one who thinks
`
`along the lines of conventional wisdom in the art and not one who undertakes to
`
`innovate, whether by extraordinary insight or systematic research. The person of
`
`ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity. In rendering my opinions
`
`throughout this declaration, I have considered the prior art, claims, and disclosures
`
`through the eyes of a POSA in 2001, when the patent application for the ’229
`
`patent was filed.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that the Board adopted Mr. Friedman’s definition of a
`
`POSA as someone with a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical
`
`engineering, computer engineering, or a related engineering discipline and two or
`
`more years of industry experience in the field of gaming devices and online
`
`
`
`15
`
`Patent Owner NexRF Exhibit 2008, Page 15 of 88
`
`

`

`gaming systems and development thereof, or equivalent experience, education, or
`
`both. (Institution Decision at 9). As I explained above with respect to my
`
`experience in the industry I met and exceeded this definition as of 2001.
`
`39. Within Mr. Friedman’s definition of a POSA, he includes two or more
`
`years of experience in online gaming systems. In my opinion, that terminology is
`
`open to different interpretations and should not be relied upon without further
`
`clarification. An online gaming system may refer to internet gaming, a sport
`
`wagering system, a lottery system, or even community style computer and video
`
`games. In my opinion, a POSA relevant to this current action would have two
`
`years of experience in the field of gaming devices (such as slot machines or casino
`
`style games) and networked gaming systems of the type used in land-based casinos
`
`for the management of data from slot machines. I also met and exceeded this
`
`definition as of 2001.
`
`B. Obviousness
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim is not
`40.
`
`patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the patent claim and
`
`the prior art are such that the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`obvious to a POSA at the time of the claimed invention, here 2001. Obviousness,
`
`as I understand it, is based on the scope and content of the prior art, any differences
`
`between the prior art and the claimed invention, the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`
`
`16
`
`Patent Owner NexRF Exhibit 2008, Page 16 of 88
`
`

`

`art, and, to the extent that they exist and have an appropriate nexus to the claimed
`
`invention (as opposed to prior art features), secondary considerations of
`
`nonobviousness. I understand that petitioner Playtika must prove and explain why
`
`the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a POSA at the time of the
`
`invention. I understand that whether there are any relevant differences between the
`
`prior art and the claimed invention is to be analyzed from the perspective of a
`
`POSA at the time of the invention in 2001. As such, my opinions are predicated on
`
`the knowledge and experience of a POSA as of 2001, even if not expressly stated
`
`as such.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that the prior art identified and discussed by Mr.
`
`Friedman and petitioner Playtika must be assessed for what it would have taught or
`
`fairly suggested to a POSA, but without the benefit of hindsight from reading the
`
`’229 patent and the invention it describes and claims. I understand that one may
`
`take into account the inferences and creative steps that a POSA would have
`
`employed in reviewing the prior art at the time of the invention. For example, if
`
`the claimed invention combined elements known in the prior art and the
`
`combination yielded results that would have been predictable to a POSA at the
`
`time of the invention, then this evidence would make it more likely that the
`
`claimed invention was obvious. On the other hand, if known elements were
`
`combined in a way that was not taught by the prior art, or if the combination was
`
`
`
`17
`
`Patent Owner NexRF Exhibit 2008, Page 17 of 88
`
`

`

`unexpected, unpredictable, or not readily achievable by a POSA, then this evidence
`
`would make it more likely that the claimed invention was not obvious.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that hindsight must not be used when comparing the
`
`prior art to the claimed invention of the ’229 patent to determine whether the
`
`claimed invention would have been obvious or non-obvious to a POSA as of 2001.
`
`43.
`
`I understand that multiple prior art references or teachings can be
`
`combined to show that a patent claim would have been obvious to a POSA. When
`
`taking this approach, I understand that Playtika must show that a POSA would
`
`have had reason or motivation to combine the references in the way the elements
`
`are recited in the claimed invention of the ’229 patent. I understand that the
`
`rationale for modifying a reference and/or combining references may come from
`
`sources—like the prior art—but it cannot come from the ’229 patent’s own
`
`disclosure. That is, Playtika cannot use the inventor’s own work against the
`
`inventor to argue that the invention would have been obvious.
`
`44. With this understanding, as discussed in more detail below, in my
`
`opinion Playtika has not shown that the combination of elements in the challenged
`
`claims of the ’229 patent is disclosed, taught, or suggested by the cited prior art. In
`
`my opinion, Playtika also has not provided sufficient motivation to combine prior
`
`art references in the manner asserted such that a POSA would have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of successfully achieving the claimed invention of the ’229
`
`
`
`18
`
`Patent Owner NexRF Exhibit 2008, Page 18 of 88
`
`

`

`patent. Accordingly, it is my opinion that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the
`
`claimed invention of the ’229 patent would have been obvious to a POSA at the
`
`time of the invention in 2001.
`
`IV.
`
`State of the Art
`A. Gaming Systems in 2001
`45. The sophistication and connectivity of gaming machines has evolved
`
`over time, beginning with completely mechanical standalone gaming devices, and
`
`resulting in the high-definition video machines that communicate over high-speed
`
`networks that we have today.
`
`46.
`
`In 2001, gaming machines were networked with physical cables, and
`
`not with the speed or sophistication we expect from today’s computers. Gaming
`
`machines, particularly slot machines, were complicated electro-mechanical devices
`
`with rigidly implemented, highly bespoke, programming. A standard gaming
`
`machine of the time used a serial connection to connect to external monitoring
`
`computers. Compared to today’s networks, serial connections were extremely
`
`slow, typically connecting at 19.2k bps. This transfer rate allowed gaming
`
`machines to send short, efficient, messages to a server, communicating events (for
`
`example, insertion of money into the machine, or the opening of a cabinet door) or
`
`status information (money wagered, money won, etc.).
`
`
`
`19
`
`Patent Owner NexRF Exhibit 2008, Page 19 of 88
`
`

`

`47. There was no practical way, in 2001, to transfer larger files such as
`
`graphics from a gaming machine. At 19.2k Baud rate (bps), it would take
`
`approximately 7 minutes to transfer a 1 MB file over the machine’s serial link. A
`
`POSA in 2001 would not have attempted to transfer large quantities of data out of
`
`a casino style gaming machine, and as demonstrated, the elapsed time to transmit
`
`live files would give any such capability no value during live gameplay, where a
`
`slot machine typically has a 2-4 second game cycle.
`
`48. Gaming or gambling machines have existed since the late 1800’s,
`
`however, the most commonly understood gaming machines, known as mechanical
`
`slot machines (sometimes referred to as one-arm bandits, or stepper reel machines)
`
`gained widespread popularity in the 1960’s/1970’s. These 1960’s/1970’s
`
`mechanical slot machines generally incorporated a number of physical wheels
`
`controlled by precision stepper motors with embedded electronic control circuits or
`
`software designed to manage game financial performance and player input.
`
`49. Mechanical slot machines displayed images to the player. These
`
`images were printed on a ‘reel strip’ attached to the circumference of a wheel, and
`
`the wheels were positioned next to one another at regular intervals and orientated
`
`to spin on a common axis. Upon activation, the wheels would spin, presenting a
`
`moving pattern of graphical images to the player. Eventually the wheels would
`
`stop, and prizes would be paid based on the combination of graphical symbols
`
`
`
`20
`
`Patent Owner NexRF Exhibit 2008, Page 20 of 88
`
`

`

`displayed to the player at the end, in accordance with a prize table displayed on the
`
`machine.
`
`50. With the advent of small, commercially available, integrated computer
`
`chips in the 1970’s, gaming machine manufacturers were able to take advantage of
`
`computer processors, on board memory storage and video screens to introduce
`
`video slot machines. Video slot machines provided the opportunity for more
`
`complex betting options (such as more betting lines and multiple credits per line),
`
`physical reel strips with graphical images were replaced with images stored in
`
`memory devices, more complex game mathematics based on the concept of virtual
`
`reel strips, more complex software based (pseudo) random number generators and
`
`animation of graphical images that was not possible with fixed artwork on a
`
`physical reel strip. Use of emerging computer technologies with video capabilities
`
`also created a market for video emulation of interactive casino table games such as
`
`Draw Poker, BlackJack or Roulette that could not be presented on stepper reel slot
`
`machines.
`
`51.
`
`I include, as Exhibit 2010, a service manual for a typical video slot
`
`machine that would have been in use in 2001. This machine, the Aristocrat
`
`Mk4/5XR, was manufactured and sold by Aristocrat Leisure Industries under one
`
`of their subsidiary companies, Jubilee Gaming Technologies, one of the major
`
`players in the casino/gaming slot machine market. This service manual would
`
`
`
`21
`
`Patent Owner NexRF Exhibit 2008, Page 21 of 88
`
`

`

`have been publicly available in 2001, particularly to interested members of the
`
`gaming community, such as casino operators and technicians. I note that the front
`
`cover of the manual lists a part number (AM-1121032-01), which a member of the
`
`public could have used to order this manual from Aristocrat or one of its vendors.
`
`This particular machine had at least three manuals, an operator manual, a service
`
`manual, and a parts manual. (Ex. 2010 at 6). In my experience, the service manual
`
`is the most comprehensive and detailed of these three options. I discuss the
`
`relevance of Mk4/5XR manual in Paragraphs 98-121 of this Declaration.
`
`52. Casinos were also slow to adopt Internet technology. I am not aware
`
`of any Casinos that allowed remote access to their financial information, servers,
`
`or game machines in 2001. In 2001, the development of online gaming systems
`
`associated with traditional land-based casinos was considered an emerging
`
`capability, with a very limited number of companies and individuals having
`
`established expertise or even basic understanding of the technology. If casino
`
`personnel needed to inspect data about the performance of a gaming machine, that
`
`information would have been accessed from a secure server, located in a highly
`
`access-controlled area of the casino.
`
`53.
`
`In 2001, at a time when only a small percentage of the United States
`
`had access to broadband Internet; and the remainder of the population connected to
`
`the Internet using dial-up services, internet gaming in major markets like the
`
`
`
`22
`
`Patent Owner NexRF Exhibit 2008, Page 22 of 88
`
`

`

`United States had not been legitimized. Prior to 2001, it was generally understood
`
`that internet gaming might be legal in certain countries around the world, however
`
`accessing these sites in the United States constituted a grey area. It was difficult to
`
`fund off-shore gaming accounts and difficult to withdraw funds. There was also
`
`no assurance that the games being offered were properly regulated. Consequently,
`
`if a player suffered a loss of funds due to a data breach, hack, or malfeasance by
`
`the operator, the player did not have any recourse to deal with those issues in the
`
`United States.
`
`54. The introduction of computer-based technologies in slot machines
`
`(video or ste