Crown Melbourne Limited
[2023] APO 3
•19 January 2023
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Crown Melbourne Limited [2023] APO 3
Patent Application: 2020204279
Title:Method and apparatus for Roulette game
Patent Applicant: Crown Melbourne Limited
Delegate: Dr A. Lim
Decision Date: 19 January 2023
Hearing Date: Written submissions filed on 07 November 2022
Catchwords: PATENTS – examiner objection – whether the invention is a manner of manufacture – informational aspect of rules for playing a modified Roulette game outweighs the form of a physical apparatus for playing the game –information represents the rules of the game itself – substance of the claimed apparatus is presentation of information – substance of the claimed method is the game itself – no patentable subject matter identified in the specification – application refused – applicability of issue estoppel discussed
Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: Pini IP
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2020204279
Title:Method and apparatus for Roulette game
Patent Applicant: Crown Melbourne Limited
Date of Decision: 19 January 2023
DECISION
The claimed invention is not for a manner of manufacture. I see no subject matter in the specification which could be made the subject of a valid claim to overcome this finding.
I refuse the application.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
Patent application 2020204279 (the present application) was filed by Crown Melbourne Limited (the applicant) on 26 June 2020. The patent request claims divisional status from patent application 2018219972 (the parent) which is in turn a divisional application of 2016210666 (the grandparent). The grandparent is itself is a divisional application of 2008203384 (the great grandparent). The present application claims the earliest priority date of 25 July 2008, this date being the filing date of the great grandparent.
I also note that the applicant filed innovation patent 2008100694 (the ’694 innovation patent) on 25 July 2008 disclosing what appears to be the same invention as described in the great grandparent. In response to an Examiner’s objection regarding a lack of unity of the invention claimed in the ’694 innovation patent, the applicant filed two further innovation patents on 18 December 2008. The further innovation patent applications were 2008101234 (the ’234 innovation patent) and 2008101235 (the ’235 innovation patent). Each of ’234 and ’235 innovation patents claim divisional status from the ’694 innovation patent. All three innovation patents were examined and certified and expired on 25 July 2016.
However, the applications for the great grandparent and the grandparent both lapsed due to failure to overcome the examiners’ objections within the period to gain acceptance. The parent application was refused by a delegate of the Commissioner in a decision, [2020] APO 47 (issued 16 October 2020), after the sole objection for a lack of manner of manufacture was heard by way of written submissions.
Since the present application was filed after 15 April 2013, this application is governed by the Patents Act 1990 (the Act) as amended by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012. Accordingly, the standard of proof that applies to the examination of the present application is the balance of probabilities. I must accept the present application if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the application complies with the Act.[1] If I am not so satisfied, then I can refuse the application.[2]
[1] Section 49 of the Act as amended.
[2] Explanatory Memorandum to the Raising the Bar Bill, item 14.
A first examination report was issued for the present application on 9 July 2021 raising manner of manufacture against all the claims as the only objection. The examiner reasoned that since all the claims of the present application are identical to the claims that were the subject of the decision of the parent, the claimed inventions of the present application are not for a manner of manner for the reasons given in the [2020] APO 47 decision (herein referred to as the Crown 2020 decision). Having viewed the claims of parent application, I am satisfied that that the claims of the present application are identical to the claims considered in the Crown 2020 decision.
On 8 July 2022, the applicant requested to be heard in relation to the sole objection of lack of manner of manufacture that was in the first examination report of the present application. The applicant also filed standard patent application 2022204929 on 8 July 2022 as a divisional application of the present application.
While the final date of acceptance of the present application was 9 July 2022, when the Commissioner makes a decision in writing in relation to an examiner’s report, the time of gaining acceptance is extended by way of regulation (reg) 13.4(1)(g) and, if appropriate, reg 13.4(3).
Estoppel
While the applicant did not comment specifically on estoppel, in circumstances where I am considering the same claims already the subject of a decision by the Commissioner, the question of whether there is an issue estoppel arises. The policy behind issue estoppel is relatively simple:
“An issue estoppel prevents a party from having the same issue determined by a court or other tribunal more than once. There are obvious reasons for this. It prevents the undesirable situation of different courts and tribunals coming to different and conflicting conclusions on the same issues and encourages the finality of judgments.”[3]
[3]Quarmby v Qasair Investments Pty Ltd [2014] TASFC 11 at [10].
The question of whether issue estoppel applies to matters before the Commissioner of Patents was ventilated in SNF (Australia) Pty Ltd v Ciba Specialty Chemicals Water Treatments Limited and I am satisfied that it does not.[4] Pursuant to section 45 I have both the power and obligation to decide on the application before me. However, I may inform myself of and have regard to an earlier decision by a delegate of the Commissioner.
[4] [2016] APO 8 at [30]-[54]. See also Commonwealth of Australia v Snell [2019] FCAFC 57.
The specification
In this decision, I am considering the specification as filed on 26 June 2020 since no amendments have been proposed up to the present point in time.
Background
The specification describes the invention to be in the field of casino table games and, more particularly, to a method and apparatus for playing Roulette.[5]
[5] The specification at page 1, lines 3-4.
The game of Roulette typically comprises a wheel with numbered and coloured compartments, and a table layout with wagering spaces where players may place their bets. By placing chips on the wagering spaces which have a character or colour to indicate a betting option, players choose to place bets on either a single number, various groupings of numbers, the colour red or black, whether the number is odd or even, and so on. When a game is played, a croupier spins the wheel in one direction, then spins a ball in the opposition direction around a tilted circular track running around the outer edge of the wheel. The ball eventually loses momentum, drops off the circular track, passes through an area of deflectors, and falls onto the wheel and into one of the coloured and numbered compartments on the wheel. A player wins a bet when the ball falls into a compartment that matches the player’s betting option on a wagering space.
The specification describes two known types of Roulette. These are European Roulette or “Single Zero” Roulette, and American Roulette or “Double Zero” Roulette.
Figure 1 and figure 4 of the specification, respectively, show a table layout and wheel for Single Zero Roulette. The figures are reproduced below for convenience. A Single Zero Roulette wheel (item 40, figure 4) has 37 compartments, numbered (non-consecutively) 1 to 36 and 0. A Single Zero Roulette table layout (item 10, figure 1) has wagering spaces (item 11, figure 1) numbered one (1) to thirty-six (36), and the wagering spaces correspond to the compartments (item 11, figure 4) numbered one (1) to thirty-six (36) on wheel 40. A wagering space with a solitary zero indicia (single zero, item 12, figure 1) is located at one end of the table layout 10, adjoining the “1”, “2” and “3’ numbered wagering spaces, and facilitates betting options for conventional Single Zero Roulette. The corresponding compartment for the Single Zero betting options on the wheel is labelled item 12 in figure 4. The betting areas labelled item 14 in figure 1 are used for other betting options described as known for Single Zero Roulette and understood by the person skilled in the art.[6]
[6] The specification at page 1, lines 11-18, and page 7, line 24, to page 8, line 2.
Figure 2 and figure 5 of the specification, respectively, show a conventional table layout and a conventional wheel for Double Zero Roulette. The figures are reproduced below for convenience. The specification describes a convention Double Zero Roulette wheel (item 50, figure 5) as having 38 compartments, numbered (non-consecutively) 1 to 36, 0 and 00. The “00” compartment is located opposite the “0” compartment on the Double Zero Roulette wheel.[7] I, therefore, understand a conventional Double Zero Roulette wheel has an additional compartment compared to the Single Zero Roulette wheel.
[7] The specification at page 1, lines 27-30, and page 8, lines 3-12.
A conventional Double Zero Roulette table layout (item 20, Figure 2) is described as having wagering spaces (item 21, figure 2) numbered one (1) to thirty-six (36), and the wagering spaces correspond to the compartments (item 21, figure 5) numbered one (1) to thirty-six (36) on wheel 40. Two wagering spaces, one with a Single Zero indicia (item 22, Figure 2) and another with a Double Zero indicia (item 23, Figure 2), are located at one end of table layout 20, adjoining the “1”, “2” and “3’ numbered wagering spaces. The “0” and “00” wagering spaces facilitate betting options, known generally as “Five Bet”, for conventional Double Zero Roulette. The compartments on wheel 50 which correspond to the “0” and “00” betting options are labelled item 22 and item 23, respectively, in figure 5. I note that the order of numbers on the wheel are significantly different to that of a Single Zero Roulette wheel. The betting areas labelled item 24 in figure 2 are used for other betting options described as known for Double Zero Roulette and understood by the person skilled in the art.[8]
[8] The specification at page 8, lines 3-15, and page 1, lines 23-26.
The specification refers to conventional Single Zero and Double Zero Roulette as “related art Roulette systems”, and states “[t]hese related art systems may suffer from predictability and there is a need for additional incentives for increasing player experience”.[9]
[9] The specification at page 1, lines 31-32.
The specification also describes other prior art Roulette systems that were “attempts to improve the efficiency of both ‘single’ and ‘double’ zero Roulette systems in order to enhance the play of the traditional game from a player’s point of view and also improvements in operation to enhance Roulette systems from a casino or house point of view”.[10] The described prior art Roulette systems are variations of the conventional Single Zero or Double Zero Roulette.[11] One variation, for example, relates to a different arrangement of indicia on a table layout and Roulette wheel such that no two adjacent numbers can be associated with either the same colour, group, column or row of the table layout.[12] Another variation relates to providing a possibility of betting on multiple balls simultaneously, rather than only a single ball, by varying the arrangement of the Roulette wheel. One arrangement comprises a single Roulette wheel with multiple balls in play. Another arrangement comprises having multiple separate wheels each having one or more tracks for a ball.[13]
[10] The specification at page 1, line 32 to page 2, line 3.
[11] The specification at page 2, line 4 to page 4, line 2.
[12] The specification at page 3, line 18 to page 4, line 2.
[13] The specification at page 2, lines 17-21.
The specification states that certain Roulette markets, including Australia, have traditionally played Single Zero Roulette and prior attempts to introduce Double Zero Roulette have been unsuccessful. This is because (1) the order of the numbers on the Single Zero wheel is different to that on a conventional Double Zero wheel, and (2) some of the betting options available on a Single Zero layout are not available on a conventional Double Zero layout.[14] Double Zero Roulette has therefore been characterised as an unsuitable product in certain markets, and no consideration has been given to changing Double Zero Roulette for the Single Zero markets.[15]
[14] The specification at page 4, lines 3-12.
[15] The specification at page 4, lines 13-17.
I understand a problem in certain Roulette markets, at the priority date of the present application, was the unattractiveness of Double Zero Roulette because the order of numbers on the Roulette wheel, and the betting options that were available for the Double Zero game, was different to the Single Zero game, which was the more commonly played game. My understanding is consistent with an explanation in the specification that experienced Roulette players mostly play according to well-known sections of a Roulette wheel, and therefore the order of numbers and betting options available are of paramount importance.[16]
[16] The specification at page 7, lines 19-21.
The specification mentions the need for a useful alternative or variation to the conventional Double Zero Roulette game.[17] The specification also states that an object of the invention of the present application is to alleviate at least one disadvantage associated with the mentioned related prior art.[18]
[17] The specification at page 4, lines 17-18.
[18] The specification at page 4, lines 27-28.
The invention as described
The specification describes multiple aspects of the invention, and each aspect generally mirrors an independent claim in the claim set of the present application. A first aspect is a Roulette apparatus with a particular table layout. A second aspect is a Roulette apparatus with the table layout of the first aspect of the invention in combination with a particular Roulette wheel. A further aspect is a method of playing a game of Roulette with the Roulette apparatus of the second aspect of the invention.
The specification describes that the embodiments of the invention arose from a realisation that a solution for addressing the problem of making Double Zero Roulette more attractive to the Single Zero market was to minimise the differences between the Single Zero and Double Zero Roulette systems. The benefits of both Single Zero and Double Zero Roulette is described as provided by an arrangement of indicia where (1) on a Roulette wheel, the single zero and double zero indicia are adjacent, and (2) on the table layout, the double zero wagering space is excluded from contact with wagering spaces for indicia other than the wagering space for the single zero.[19]
[19] The specification at page 6, lines 10-18.
The advantages of invention are described to include:
·a Roulette system that is very similar to what players already know;
·minimising the differences between Single Zero and Double Zero Roulette to the extent that many players are essentially indifferent to the two games and, consequently, there is a higher uptake of the less common game; and.
·a higher house edge game that can be offered without incurring general player dissatisfaction. [20]
[20] The specification at page 6, lines 19-26.
A preferred embodiment of the invention comprises a table layout and a Roulette wheel as shown, respectively, in figure 3 and figure 6 of the specification. Figures 3 and 6 are reproduced below for convenience. The Roulette wheel of the preferred embodiment is adapted to have the same order of numbers as a conventional Single Zero Roulette wheel and has an extra compartment for the double zero indicia (“00”, item 33, figure 6) placed adjacent the single zero indicia (“0”, item 32, figure 6). The specification explains this arrangement of numbered compartments on the wheel “makes sense for section betters” because both the “0” and the “00” are adjacent on the table layout (items 32 and 33, figure 3).[21] The arrangement of the numbers on the wheel of the preferred embodiment also does not impact on the betting options of Single Zero Roulette. However, there is a significant alteration to the betting options of conventional Double Zero Roulette.[22]
[21] The specification at page 8, lines 16-22.
[22] The specification at page 9, lines 14-17.
I understand the wheel of preferred embodiment has 38 numbered compartments, that is, an extra compartment compared to the conventional Single Zero Roulette wheel but the same number of compartments as the conventional Double Zero Roulette wheel. I further understand that an advantage of this arrangement of numbered compartments on the wheel provides a visual appearance so that Single Zero Roulette players who bet according to well-known sections of the Single Zero Roulette wheel assume a perception of familiarity.
The table layout of the preferred embodiment of the invention has a wagering space for “0” (item 32, figure 3) located adjacent to the wagering spaces for the “1”, “2” and “3” indicia on the table layout of the preferred embodiment of the invention. An additional wagering space for “00” (item 33, figure 3) located adjacent to the “0” wagering space.
The table layout of the preferred embodiment of the invention is described as designed to preserve the same betting options available on the Single Zero Roulette game. Three betting options that are lost on a conventional Double Roulette layout are preserved in the preferred embodiment of the invention. The three betting options are the Zero-Two split, Zero-Three split and First Four Corner. These are described as very popular wagering options.[23]
[23] The specification at page 8, lines 23-28, and page 9, lines 23-24.
The specification also mentions that the present invention can be embodied in an electronic form using appropriate computer hardware and computer programs.[24]
[24] The specification at page 10, line 22- to page 11, line 16.
The invention as claimed
The specification as filed has seven (7) claims. The entire claim set is reproduced in Annex A to this decision. Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 are independent claims.
Claim 1 is directed to a Roulette apparatus that comprises a table layout that is adapted for placing wagers. The table layout is defined as comprising three groups of wagering spaces, namely, (a) individual wagering spaces numbered from one to thirty-six; (b) an individual wagering space that has a Double Zero; and (c) an individual wagering space that has a Single Zero. The plain meaning of the term ‘space’ in a two-dimensional context is a particular area of a surface.[25] Therefore, I interpret a wagering space on the table layout as a distinctively marked area on the table layout for placing a wager or bet. I interpret the table layout as a presentation of numbered spaces, and each numbered space represents a betting option and provides an area for Roulette players to place their bet.
[25] Macquarie dictionary online, accessed 13 December 2022.
I also interpret the location of the Single Zero wagering space to be (1) adjacent to a subset of the wagering spaces that are numbered one to thirty-six, and (2) separates the Double Zero wagering space from the subset of the numbered wagering spaces. I consider the arrangement of numbered wagering spaces for a table layout shown in figure 3 of the present application falls within the scope of claim 1. Additionally, I consider the table layout of figure 3 to be essentially that for conventional Single Zero Roulette with an additional double zero wagering space at one end of the table layout.
Claim 2 is directed to a Roulette apparatus that comprises a table layout and a Roulette wheel. I interpret the table layout of claim 2 to be identical to the table layout defined in claim 1. I interpret the Roulette wheel of claim 2 to have 38 compartments, namely, (a) compartments numbered one to thirty-six, (b) a compartment numbered with a single zero, and (c) a compartment numbered with a double zero. The compartment with the double zero is defined to be either adjacent to or separate from the compartment with the single zero, with all embodiments showing the two compartments adjacent to each other. I interpret claim 2 as including within its scope an arrangement of numbered compartments on the Roulette wheel, as shown in figure 6, where a compartment for a double zero is located adjacent a compartment for a single zero.
Claim 3 and claim 4 are each appended to claim 2 and further define the arrangement of numbered compartments on the Roulette wheel. I interpret each of claims 3 and 4 to define the same order of numbers as a conventional Single Zero Roulette wheel and has an extra compartment for the double zero indicia placed adjacent the single zero indicia.
Claim 5 is directed to a method of playing a roulette using an apparatus comprising a table layout and a Roulette wheel. I interpret the apparatus used in claim 5 to be identical to the Roulette apparatus defined in claim 2. The method of claim 5 includes providing betting options for one or more of three betting options, namely, Zero-Two split, Zero-Three split and First Four Corner.
Claim 6 is also directed to a method of playing a roulette using an apparatus comprising a table layout and a Roulette wheel. I interpret the apparatus used in claim 6 to be identical to the Roulette apparatus defined in claim 2. The method of claim 6 includes a step of spinning the Roulette wheel, introducing a ball to the spinning Roulette wheel, and determining a settlement of wagers based on the compartment in which the ball comes to rest.
Claim 7 is appended to claim 6 and further defines that wagers are placed before the ball comes to rest in a wheel compartment.
The Examiner’s objection
I reproduce the first examination report of the present application in entirety below:
“The application is not for a manner of manufacture within the meaning of paragraph 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act.
Claims 1-7 of this divisional application are identical to the amended claims 1-7 of the parent application 2018219972, which were the subject of a hearing. Claims 1-7 are not for a manner of manufacture as per the reasoning of the decision on the parent application made on the 16th of October 2020; pages 15-18.”
The applicant’s submissions
The applicant stated that considering the Examiner’s first report its submissions are “directed to the reasoning of the Delegate in the decision on the parent application (Australian patent application No.2018219972) made on 16th October 2020, in particular, the Delegate’s conclusions at pages 15-18 thereof.”[26]
[26] The applicant’s submissions filed 7 November 2022 at [3].
The submissions of the applicant for the present application includes arguments alleging that the delegate of the Crown 2020 decision mischaracterised the claimed invention of the parent application and apparently applied inappropriate case law.[27] Apart from these allegations, the nature of the submissions for the present application are very similar to the submissions that were provided for the parent application in the Crown 2020 decision. While the principle of issue estoppel does not apply to decisions of the Commissioner of Patents, I will inform myself of and have regard to the earlier decision of the Commissioner. I will also have regard to the applicant’s submissions filed for the present application. I reproduce, below, paragraphs from the applicant’s submissions which I consider summarises the applicant’s main propositions. I will address these submissions in due course.
[27] The applicant’s submissions filed 7 November 2022 at [5], [9]-[10], [61]-[62].
The applicant’s submissions regarding the reasoning of the delegate of Crown 2020 decision are summarised by the following paragraphs:
“We submit the claimed invention is not analogous to those cases considered to be the arrangement of information characterised solely by the content of that information or those cases considered to be mere schemes. Accordingly, any reasoning to sustain the sole remaining objection to the Application that is drawn from the printed matter or mere scheme caselaw is inapt. The Delegate’s reasoning, in our view, involves a mischaracterisation of the claimed invention. The invention involves physical apparatus and physical steps carried out on a physical product using physical apparatus, to produce a physical and tangible result. It does not bear a resemblance to the ‘presentation of information’ and ‘mere scheme’ cases on which the Delegate has relied. No meaningful analogy to those cases can be drawn [citing Technological Resources Pty Limited v Tettman [2019] (Technological Resources) FCA 1889 at [153]-[154]].”[28]
“The invention in the present case, lies not in the presentation of information per se or in any scheme or plan, but the physical and positional means by which a game is realized. Here there is an artificial state of affairs produced to realize the invention, and the invention precedes the playing of the game and the general rules of the game. Contrary to the Delegate’s finding [in the Crown 2020 decision], the present invention is in line with the Aristocrat single touch interface decision of IP Australia [in [2016] APO 49]: ‘information is located in a particular position (by virtue of the claimed physical elements of the Application comprising individual numbered wagering spaces for accommodating indicia) and functionality is generated by the use of this positional location to improve the gaming machine’ or, apparatus in this case, which is directed to a new combination of known physical elements to produce a new effect, namely, the playing of a new game of double zero Roulette that introduces features of single zero Roulette and thus provide a hitherto unattainable gaming option with new apparatus.
Furthermore, we submit the Delegate did not consistently apply the relevant law exercised in the Aristocrat single touch interface decision to the [Crown 2020 decision]. In this respect, rather that applying the law consistently to two separate factual circumstances, the Delegate conflated the facts of Aristocrat [in [2016] APO 49] with the facts of the Application [in the Crown 2020 decision] and erroneously required ‘consequential actions’ to be performed by the claimed invention of the Application after interaction with players. In contrast, the Delegate should have applied the law consistently to the two separate factual circumstances and, in doing so, should have determined if a physical effect (mechanical purpose) is being served by the claimed ‘presentation of information’ as characterised by the Delegate. Such a consistent application of the law would find that in the present case, a means for effecting the game and bet options, analogous to the Aristocrat case, is built into the table layout (or interface) at the time of its manufacture. The nature of application of the mechanical effect of presented information should not be determinative of patentability but whether or not there is a mechanical effect, per se. In the present case, the claimed subject matter clearly has a mechanical effect, built-in as it were, by changing the game and introducing new options for betting for players.”[29] (emphasis added)
[28] The applicant’s submissions filed 7 November 2022 at [5].
[29] The applicant’s submissions filed 7 November 2022 at [9]-[10].
The applicant’s submissions regarding the substance of the invention of the present application are as follows:
“On any reasonable analysis of the substance of the invention disclosed by the Application, it would become apparent that what is being claimed is directed to a new configuration of spaces allowing for physical wagering (placement of chips) to occur in so far as the table layout is concerned, which is not abstract. The claimed Roulette wheel is a non-standard European Roulette wheel, and it is not an American Roulette wheel. In this respect, it cannot be said of the new wheel that it is an arrangement of information, when it is physically a new European style wheel with (x+1) compartments compared to the standard European wheel plus information associated with the compartments that bears a mechanical relationship to retaining the standard European wheel sequence of numbers in conjunction with the new betting options available with the new table layout. To reiterate, the claimed Roulette wheel is a new non-standard European Roulette wheel, and it is not an American Roulette wheel.
…. there is a material advantage in the provision of a new game, which is not abstract in character. A new scheme of wagering ensues, but different physical wheel and ball activity occurs, which is also not abstract, and physical wagering (placement of chips) occurs which is not abstract.”[30]
and
“… the substance of the invention of the present Application is not a mere scheme because the claimed limitations directed to physical elements and components of Roulette apparatus go to the heart of the improvement offered by the invention and produce a double zero Roulette variation with material advantages over both single zero Roulette and double zero Roulette forms of the game as they were known and operated before the priority date of the invention. …”[31]
and
“On the facts of the claimed single touch interface, the Hearing Officer [in [2016] APO 49] adduced that it is reasonable to view the substance of the invention as the presentation of game information in a way that allows the game and bet denomination to be selected in a single action. Analogously, with respect to the present invention, the substance of the claimed monopoly can be viewed as the presentation of game information in a way that allows wagers to be placed on both single zero Roulette and double zero Roulette.”[32]
[30] The applicant’s submissions filed 7 November 2022 at [40]-[41].
[31] The applicant’s submissions filed 7 November 2022 at [72].
[32] The applicant’s submissions filed 7 November 2022 at [53].
The applicant argued that claims of the present application are in substance not directed to an arrangement of information characterised solely by the content of that information. The applicant submitted:
The claims of the Application do not attempt to monopolize the presentation of information. Nor do they attempt to monopolize the numeric value of any information. By way of counterexample, this is markedly different from Myriad, in which the patentee was actually trying to monopolize a genetic code, ie information (which happened to be carried in isolated DNA).
Apparatus claims 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Application are directed to Roulette apparatus comprising, inter alia, a physical table layout adapted for placing wagers. This wording in the preamble of the apparatus claims cannot be ignored because it goes to the substance of the invention. The layout features, as claimed, provide a physical modification of conventional forms of single-zero and double-zero Roulette table layouts that produces a new functionality to both traditional forms of Roulette by way of a new form of double-zero Roulette that retains preferred betting options available only in single-zero Roulette.
… None of the claims is to a presentation of information (‘mere’) or otherwise, these claims are to a physical/mechanical device. One of the components of that device is a region for the receipt of wagering chips, two of the sub-regions of which carry the markings ‘0’ and ‘00’. Those sub-regions do not display any more information than does the key-hole in a lock. The physical key-hole in a lock is to be used for the insertion of a key, but the keyhole is not the ‘mere presentation of information’, nor is it ‘information’. The same reasoning follows with every region on the Roulette table, in particular, the table layout spaces. A similar analogy is with the cup-holder on a car dashboard or in a centre console - it is designed for receipt of a cup or vessel, but it is not ‘a presentation of information’. With the present invention, as claimed, the zero ‘0’ and the double zero ‘00’ elements are physical components of the table for receipt of gambling chips. They are no more ‘information’ than are the dimples on the skin of a golf ball which, like the ‘wagering spaces’ of the presently claimed invention, are there to serve a physical function.”[33]
[33] The applicant’s submissions filed 7 November 2022 at [63]-[65].
The applicant submitted the Roulette table layout of the claimed invention provides a physical effect:
“The Roulette table layout being a feature common to all claims of the Application has a physical effect. The substance of the present invention lies in introducing the benefits of double zero Roulette with minimum disruption to players used to traditional single zero Roulette. A cursory read of the specification leads a person skilled in the art to realise this is a material advantage in the game of Roulette. The physical positioning of the ‘00’ betting element in its defined wagering space atop the ‘0’ betting element in its respective wagering space has been deliberately chosen to satisfy the mechanical function of fitting within the traditional location, thus extending the zero section of the layout without affecting other sections.
… Even if the physical device aspects of the claimed invention were to be dismissed (improperly as that would be), the location of information in a particular position where functionality is generated by the use of this positional location to improve the game is considered patentable by IP Australia [citing [2016] APO 49 at [48]] and such a contribution is technical in nature, and achieves a practical and useful result.
The integers of claim 1 may include indicia that conveys information to the user for placing wagers but more importantly the integers of claim 1 define a physical positioning of specific indicia at particular locations upon the device of a table layout in order to serve a mechanical function, i.e. allow for specific bets to be placed upon the laying down of players chips at locations on the table layout in relation to the newly devised hybrid double zero Roulette game in order to retain the favoured betting options of single zero Roulette. This can hardly be categorised as the mere presentation of information characterised solely by the content of the information.”[34]
[34] The applicant’s submissions filed 7 November 2022 at [66]-[68].
The applicant also argued that playing Roulette itself requires manual operations with the claimed apparatus and produces a physical effect. The applicant submitted:
“With respect to method claims 5, 6 and 7 of the Application, reproducing the invention according to the claimed monopoly limitations falls within the scope of the term ‘mechanical’, which according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary has entries for its meaning as follows:
• of, or relating to manual operations, and;
• caused by, resulting from, or relating to a process that involves a purely physical as opposed to a chemical or biological change or process.Accordingly, playing Roulette according to the method claims of the Application necessitates manual operations with the claimed apparatus to produce a physical outcome.”[35]
[35] The applicant’s submissions filed 7 November 2022 at [69]-[70].
The applicant also submitted:
“The Commissioner should also take guidance from Technological Resources Pty Limited v Tettman [2019] FCA 1889 (15 November 2019) in this matter, which we consider to be directly on point. …
… In the event the Commissioner considers applying Research Affiliates [citing [2014] FCAFC 150] and RPL Central [citing [2015] FCAC 177] to determining the patentability of the claimed invention, those cases have no application in the present case as the invention here is not a business method or scheme of the kind which has never been patentable …
… It is not necessary in this case to look for “technical” components, or the use of something other than “generic” technology. Such considerations might have been relevant if the invention was in truth directed to a computer-implemented business method or scheme, such that it was necessary to search for patentability in the manner of its implementation in a computer. That is simply not the case here…”[36]
[36] The applicant’s submissions filed 7 November 2022 at [73].
I have previously interpreted the subject matter of the claims of the present invention, and none of the claims are directed to a computer-implemented invention. Therefore, to the extent that Technological Resources may be relevant in the present case, I agree with the applicant that consideration of legal principles particular to computer-implemented inventions are not applicable here. I will now discuss the law on manner of manufacture relevant to the present case.
The law on manner of manufacture
Section 18(1) of the Act relevantly reads:
Subject to subsection (2), an invention is a patentable invention for the purposes of a standard patent if the invention, so far as claimed in any claim:
(a) is a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies;
The concept of manner of manufacture has developed over time and is not readily reduced to a simple formula. The classic definition of manner of manufacture is set out in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents:[37]
“The inquiry which the definition demands is an inquiry into the scope of the permissible subject matter of letters patent and grants of privilege protected by the section. It is an inquiry not into the meaning of a word so much as into the breadth of the concept which the law has developed by its consideration of the text and purpose of the Statute of Monopolies. ... The right question is: ‘Is this a proper subject of letters patent according to the principles which have been developed for the application of s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies?’”[38]
[37] [1959] HCA 67; 102 CLR 252 (NRDC).
[38] NRDC at 269, [14].
The High Court then went on to set out a test in terms relevant to the facts of that case:
“a process, to fall within the limits of patentability which the context of the Statute of Monopolies has supplied, must be one that offers some advantage which is material, in the sense that the process belongs to a useful art as distinct from a fine art … that its value to the country is in the field of economic endeavour.”[39]
and
“The effect produced by the appellant's method exhibits the two essential qualities upon which ‘product’ and ‘vendible’ seem designed to insist. It is a ‘product’ because it consists in an artificially created state of affairs, discernible by observing over a period the growth of weeds and crops respectively on sown land on which the method has been put into practice. And the significance of the product is economic; for it provides a remarkable advantage, indeed to the lay mind a sensational advantage, for one of the most elemental activities by which man has served his material needs, the cultivation of the soil for the production of its fruits.”[40]
[39] NRDC at 275, [22].
[40] NRDC at 277, [25].
In Grant v Commissioner of Patents[41] the Full Court of the Federal Court considered whether a physical effect was required:
“A physical effect in the sense of a concrete effect or phenomenon or manifestation or transformation is required. In NRDC, an artificial effect was physically created on the land. In Catuity and CCOM as in State Street and AT&T, there was a component that was physically affected or a change in state or information in a part of a machine. These can all be regarded as physical effects. By contrast, the alleged invention is a mere scheme, an abstract idea, mere intellectual information, which has never been held to be patentable, despite the existence of such schemes over many years of the development of the principles that apply to manner of manufacture. There is no physical consequence at all.”[42]
[41] [2006] FCAFC 120; 234 ALR 230 (Grant).
[42] Grant at [32].
The High Court has consistently made it plain that NRDC, and all other cases, were not laying down a precise formulation that can be applied unthinkingly:
“Nothing said in the Court's reasons for decision in that case can be taken as an exact verbal formula which alone captures the breadth of the ideas to which effect must be given.”[43]
“This Court in NRDC did not prescribe a well-defined pathway for the development of the concept of ‘manner of manufacture’ in its application to unimagined technologies with unimagined characteristics and implications. Rather, it authorised a case-by-case methodology.”[44]
[43] Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 50; 253 CLR 284 (Apotex) at [83].
[44] D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35; 258 CLR 334 (Myriad) at [23].
That case-by-case approach must have regard to the substance of the claimed invention, not simply the form of the claim.[45] The point is made most succinctly by Gageler and Nettle JJ in the Myriad case:
“Whatever words have been used, the matter must be looked at as one of substance and effect must be given to the true nature of the claim.”[46]
[45] Myriad at [6] and [88].
[46] Myriad at [144].
Legal precedence has held that games per se are not patentable because a game itself is merely a mental process, abstract idea, or scheme. A game does not become patentable merely because it is implemented with the assistance of cards, tokens or a games board where these physical articles are characterised by intellectual information related to the rules of the game. A game apparatus may be patentable where it has a practical utility other than merely allowing the game to be played.[47]
[47] Cobianchi’s Application (1953) 70 RPC 199 (Cobianchi’s Application).
In Cobianchi’s Application, a new way of playing the well-known game of “Canasta” using differently marked cards was held to be a manner of manufacture. Lloyd-Jacob J stated:
“It is well settled law that a printed sheet, ticket, coupon or the like, upon which some arrangement of words or the like is the only alleged invention, does not generally speaking qualify for patent protection.
The rule has been held to be subject to certain exceptions, but it is reasonably clear that a mere multiplication of the sheet, ticket, coupon or the like and the aggregation of a number of copies into a pack could not properly be said to provide a manner of manufacture.
If, however, the aggregation into a pack is not of a number of copies, but of a number of differently printed sheets which in their association one with another have a potential working inter-relationship, the aggregation possesses something more than the sum of its individual parts, although it is to be noted that this something more is but a·potentiality which requires for its translation into actuality not only the full collection of the parts but·a conception or plan for their use, for example, a card game.
….
I am satisfied that the game itself, whatever its ingenuity, could not be the subject of patent protection, but I am not satisfied that the ingenuity shown in devising this novel pack, which requires the operation of a manner of manufacture for its reproduction, can be dismissed as a mere idea or plan.”[48]
[48] Ibid.
In Commissioner of Patents v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd, the Full Court of the Federal Court, when discussing games being played on a mechanical poker machine, cited decisions that had previously dealt with board or card games and affirmed a patent does not protect a game itself which is an abstract idea.[49]
[49] [2021] FCAFC 202 at [16].
Prior to NRDC, decisions in the United Kingdom traditionally held that a mere presentation of information such as a printed sheet, ticket, coupon, or the like are not patentable unless the arrangement or presentation of information provided a mechanical purpose. In Virginia-Caroline Chemical Corporation’s Application, Lloyd-Jacob J explained the principle as being that intellectual or visual content of a paper, card, cinematograph film or gramophone records related to the fine and not the useful arts. His Honour further explained that:
“Even where such information is of importance in describing or defining an operation to be performed on some apparatus it cannot be regarded as part of the performance itself and thus qualify as a manner of manufacture. If however the marks as such are described to operate through appropriate means automatically to fulfil a commercial purpose, whether the means are mechanical, optical or electrical, they can properly be regarded as an integral part of a manner of manufacture and as such fit subject matter for patent claims.”[50]
[50] (1958) RPC 35 at page 36.
In Cooper’s Application, Sir Robert Finlay, A.G. accepted the principle that an arrangement of words upon a sheet, such as a printed sheet, coupon, ticket or equivalent, would not be patentable subject matter where in substance the arrangement would be a scheme.[51] However, he considered leaving a blank space in the middle of a newspaper page provided a mechanical purpose. This is because leaving the blank space allowed the newspaper to be properly folded down the middle, not interfere with any printed matter and enable a reader to read the newspaper more easily and comfortably. The arrangement of printed matter was considered not to be for the more conventional use from a literary point of view. The basis of the decision was that the applicant was proposing a particular way of manufacturing a newspaper and the alleged utility was considered purely mechanical.[52]
Consideration
[51] (1901) 19 RPC 53 (Cooper’s Application).
[52] Cooper’s Application at pages 54-55.
What is the subject matter of the claims?
I have previously interpreted the claims of the present application. I acknowledge that the invention claimed in claims 1, 2, 3 and 4 regarding a Roulette apparatus comprises physical components, these being the table layout alone or in combination with the Roulette wheel, which are articles of manufacture. However, the subject matter does not automatically dictate the substance of the invention and my analyses must give effect to the true nature of the claim. I will apply the same analyses to the claimed methods of claims 5-7.
As I previously found, none of the claims are directed to a computer-implemented invention. While the specification does mention that the present invention can be embodied in an electronic form using appropriate computer hardware and computer programs, the applicant acknowledges that:
“Electronic embodiments of the invention merely provide an alternate implementation or simulation of an otherwise tangible modification of two types of conventional Roulette producing a new combination. Therefore, the invention is in no way dependent upon electronic or computer implementation, but rather lends itself to such implementation like so many other patented games apparatus and methods.”[53]
[53] The applicant’s submissions filed 7 November 2022 at [27].
How does the claimed invention work?
A determination of the substance of a claimed invention requires consideration of how the claimed invention works. In considering how the invention works, I must consider the nature and contribution of the features of the invention claimed as a whole.
The nature and contribution of the table layout to the working of the invention
As discussed previously, the table layout of the claimed invention is a presentation of numbered spaces marked on a surface, each numbered space represents a betting option and provides an area for Roulette players to place their bet. The table layout has been designed to be visually like a conventional Single Zero Roulette table layout, preserve the same betting options available on a conventional Single Zero Roulette game and provide some betting options of a conventional Double Zero Roulette game. I consider that the table layout to be a presentation of printed matter where the printed matter provides Roulette players with information about the betting options they can bet on. Therefore, I characterise the table layout of the claimed invention as presentation of information.
I consider the contribution of the presentation of information on the table layout as the provision of betting options of a modified Roulette game in a way which is visually very similar to conventional Single Zero Roulette. In my view this contribution addresses the problem stated in the specification, that is, making Double Zero Roulette more attractive to the Single Zero market by minimising the differences between the Single Zero and Double Zero Roulette.
The applicant submitted:
“… With the present invention, as claimed, the zero ‘0’ and the double zero ‘00’ elements are physical components of the table for receipt of gambling chips. They are no more ‘information’ than are the dimples on the skin of a golf ball which, like the ‘wagering spaces’ of the presently claimed invention, are there to serve a physical function.”[54]
and
“… more importantly the integers of claim 1 define a physical positioning of specific indicia at particular locations upon the device of a table layout in order to serve a mechanical function, i.e. allow for specific bets to be placed upon the laying down of players chips at locations on the table layout in relation to the newly devised hybrid double zero Roulette game in order to retain the favoured betting options of single zero Roulette. This can hardly be categorised as the mere presentation of information characterised solely by the content of the information”[55]
[54] The applicant’s submissions filed 7 November 2022 at [65].
[55] The applicant’s submissions filed 7 November 2022 at [68].
I accept the surface of the table layout, which has the printed numbers and marks for wagering spaces, holds the betting chips of a Roulette player. However, I consider that the arrangement of indicia printed on the table layout does not serve a mechanical purpose. The main function of the arrangement of numbered wagering spaces of the table layout is to inform Roulette players of the betting options available for play, and for players to inform others which betting option they have placed their bets on. I do not consider the function of providing information as mechanical in nature. I note that the delegate in the Crown 2020 decision also found the table layout of the invention did not provide a mechanical purpose.
The nature and contribution of the Roulette wheel to the working of the invention
The applicant submitted:
“… The claimed Roulette wheel is a non-standard European Roulette wheel, and it is not an American Roulette wheel. In this respect, it cannot be said of the new wheel that it is an arrangement of information, when it is physically a new European style wheel with (x+1) compartments compared to the standard European wheel plus information associated with the compartments that bears a mechanical relationship to retaining the standard European wheel sequence of numbers in conjunction with the new betting options available with the new table layout.”[56]
[56] The applicant’s submissions filed 7 November 2022 at [40].
As I discussed previously, the Roulette wheel of the claimed invention (of claims 2, 3 and 4) has 38 compartments; that is, an extra compartment compared to the conventional Single Zero Roulette wheel, but the same number of compartments as the conventional Double Zero Roulette wheel. A compartment with the double zero can be located adjacent to a compartment with the single zero in an arrangement of numbered compartments on the Roulette wheel. The specification explains that this arrangement of numbered compartments on the wheel is of paramount importance to Single Zero Roulette players who bet according to well-known sections of the Single Zero Roulette wheel.[57] Therefore, I consider that it is the visual presentation of printed matter on the modified wheel that provides players with a perception of familiarity with the modified game.
[57] The specification at page 7, lines 19-21.
I accept that the Roulette wheel of the claimed invention is a physical device. While the claimed Roulette wheel is not a conventional Single Zero Roulette wheel or a conventional Double Zero Roulette wheel, I consider it has the same physical form as a conventional Double Zero Roulette wheel with 38 numbered compartments. It is the arrangement of the numbers on the claimed Roulette wheel that provides Roulette players in a Single Zero Roulette market a perception of familiarity with the modified game. Consequently, I consider it is the visual presentation of printed matter that contributes to the attractiveness of the modified Roulette game. Therefore, I attribute less weight to the physical form of the Roulette wheel of the claimed invention.
Additionally, I consider the main function of the numbered compartments as indicating whether there is a match between a player’s bet on the table layout and where a ball (that is used to play a Roulette game) comes to rest in a wheel compartment. Therefore, I consider the nature and contribution of the Roulette wheel to be presentation of printed where the printed matter provides Roulette players with information for making their betting strategies or informs interested individuals of a betting outcome. I also consider the information provided by the claimed Roulette wheel is not mechanical in nature.
The table layout and Roulette wheel of the claimed invention are two separate components which are used to play a modified Roulette game. In my view there is no mechanical relationship between the table layout and the Roulette wheel arising from the process of placing bets or determining a settlement of bets based on finding a match between players’ bets on a table layout and where a ball comes to rest in a Roulette wheel compartment. The placing and settling of bets are governed by the rules of the game and effected by participants of the game.
What is the nature of the contribution to the art?
Another consideration in determining the substance of the invention is the nature of the contribution to the art of the invention.
For the reasons provided previously, I consider the contribution of the claimed invention is the provision of a new game which closely resembles conventional Single Zero Roulette but has some betting options of conventional Double Zero Roulette. The new game is provided by modifying the presentation of printed matter on both the table layout and the Roulette wheel.
What is the substance of the claims?
I note that in determining the substance of the claimed invention, I must consider the nature and contribution of the features of the invention as a whole. No single consideration is conclusive in determining the substance of the claimed invention. Some considerations may be more significant than others.
On the facts of the present case, I consider the way printed matter is presented on both the table layout and the Roulette wheel of the claimed invention to be significant considerations in determining the substance of the claimed invention. While I accept that the surface of the table layout holds the betting chips of a Roulette player, it is the printed matter presented on the table layout that is used in the working of the invention. I consider the nature of that use weighs towards the substance of the claimed invention being presentation of information for playing a new Roulette game.
Similarly, I accept the Roulette wheel of the claimed invention is a physical device which is spun when a game is played, and the numbered wheel compartments used to receive a ball for the winning bets. However, it is the arrangement of numbers of the claimed Roulette wheel which provides Roulette players with information for making their betting strategies or informs interested individuals of a betting outcome. Additionally, as previously discussed, the physical form of the wheel with 38 numbered compartments is known for playing conventional Double Zero Roulette. Therefore, I consider the contribution of the informational aspects of the Roulette wheel, that is the order of numbers on the Roulette wheel, outweigh the form of the wheel as a physical device when determining the substance of the invention.
The particular arrangement of numbered wagering spaces on the table layout and the particular order of numbers on the Roulette wheel provides a new way of wagering. As previously discussed, this is also the contribution of the present invention to the art. I characterise the new way of wagering as a new Roulette game governed by the rules of a game itself. This new game is a modified Double Zero Roulette game that provides players with a perception of familiarity with a conventional Single Zero Roulette game, preserves the same betting options as conventional Single Zero Roulette and provides some betting options of a conventional Double Zero Roulette game. I understand this to be the finding of the delegate in Crown 2020 decision.[58]
[58] [2020] APO 47 at [48].
Evaluating the nature and contribution of the features of the invention claimed as a whole, on balance, I consider the informational aspects of the claimed Roulette apparatus of claim 1 outweigh the form as a physical apparatus. I characterise the substance of the invention of claim 1 as a presentation of information comprising an arrangement of numbered wagering spaces on the table layout. This arrangement serves only the purpose of enabling the playing of a game and has no other practical utility. Additionally, the game itself is not patentable according to established principles. Consequently, I conclude that the Roulette apparatus claimed in claim 1 is not for a manner of manufacture within the meaning of s 18(1)(a) of the Act.
As to claim 2, I consider the contribution of the informational aspects of the Roulette wheel of claim 2, arising from the arrangement of numbers on the wheel, outweigh the form as a physical apparatus. The physical apparatus has no practical utility other than allowing the game to be played. Therefore, I give the physical aspect of the Roulette wheel minimal weight. On balance, I consider that the substance of the invention of claim 2 is a presentation of information comprising an arrangement of numbered wagering spaces on the table layout and a particular order of numbers on the Roulette wheel. For the same reasons as for claim 1, I conclude that the Roulette apparatus claimed in claim 2 is not for a manner of manufacture within the meaning of s 18(1)(a) of the Act.
Claims 3 and 4 further define the order of numbers for numbering compartments on the Roulette wheel. I consider the further features do not alter the balance of considerations for the claims. On balance, I consider the substance of invention in each of claims 3 and 4 is a presentation of information representing the rules of the game itself. Consequently, I conclude that the Roulette apparatus claimed in each of claim 3 and claim 4 is not for a manner of manufacture within the meaning of s 18(1)(a) of the Act.
The applicant submitted that the method claimed in each of claims 5, 6 and 7 involves manual operations with the claimed Roulette apparatus to “produce a physical outcome”.[59] While I accept manual operations are performed by a participant of the game on the physical components of the Roulette apparatus, the steps in the claimed method of playing a Roulette game are governed by the rules of the game. It is also the rules of the Roulette game which determine the betting options available for play. Therefore, I give aspects of manual operations involved in the claimed method of playing the Roulette game minimal weight. Additionally, I note the result of the performing the claimed method is playing a Roulette game itself. On balance, I conclude the substance of claim 5 is the game itself. Consequently, claim 5 is not for a manner of manufacture within the meaning of s 18(1)(a) of the Act.
[59] The applicant’s submissions filed 7 November 2022 at [69]-[70].
Claims 6 and 7 further define the steps of playing the Roulette game. I consider these further steps are part of playing a Roulette game which in substance are governed by the rules of the game. On balance, I consider the informational aspects in the rules of the Roulette game outweigh any manual operations, defined in the additional steps, of playing the game and do not alter the balance of considerations. I conclude the substance of each of claim 6 and 7 is the game itself. Consequently, each of claims 6 and 7 is not for a manner of manufacture within the meaning of s 18(1)(a) of the Act.
Additional observations
The applicant submitted:
“… Even if the physical device aspects of the claimed invention were to be dismissed (improperly as that would be), the location of information in a particular position where functionality is generated by the use of this positional location to improve the game is considered patentable by IP Australia [citing [2016] APO 49 at [48]] and such a contribution is technical in nature, and achieves a practical and useful result.”[60]
[60] The applicant’s submissions filed 7 November 2022 at [67].
The invention in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited [2016] APO 49 (Aristocrat ’16) related to a computer-implemented invention. The delegate in Aristocrat ’16 found the substance of the invention in that case to be the presentation of game information in a way that allowed the game and bet denomination to be selected in a single action. The delegate also found that it was not normal to configure a gaming machine interface in this way, and positioning information in a particular location generated functionality to improve the gaming machine. The contribution was found to be technical in nature and achieved a practical and useful result.[61]
[61] Aristocrat ’16 at [48].
As I previously found, none of the claimed inventions are directed to a computer-implemented invention. I agree with the applicant that considerations of legal principles particular to computer-implemented inventions are not useful here.[62] Since the invention in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited [2016] APO 49 (Aristocrat ’16) relates to a computer-implemented invention, I consider it is unhelpful to attempt to apply the facts of the present case to the legal principles from Aristocrat ‘16. From my discussions in this decision, like the delegate in Crown 2020, I consider the legal principles derived in Myriad and the older cases relating to the presentation of information as the most helpful applicable law for the present case. I understand this to be the approach of the delegate in the Crown 2020 decision.
[62] The applicant’s submissions filed 7 November 2022 at [73].
As to the divisional application 2022204929 that I mentioned earlier, while issue estoppel does not apply to proceedings before the Commissioner of Patents, it may be assumed that the present decision will be highly relevant to examination of the divisional application.
Conclusion
The invention claimed in each of claims 1-7 is not for a manner of manufacture. I have previously discussed the disclosure of the specification and, having reviewed the specification, I can see no subject matter which could be made the subject of a valid claim to overcome this finding. In these circumstances it is appropriate to refuse the application.
Dr A. Lim
Delegate of the Commissioner of PatentsAnnex A: Claims of the application 2020204279 as filed on 26 June 2020
1. A Roulette apparatus comprising a table layout adapted for placing wagers, the table layout comprising:
first elements comprising individual numbered wagering spaces for accommodating individual indicia from one (1) to thirty-six (36);
a second element comprising an individual numbered wagering space for accommodating a double zero indicia; and
a third element comprising an individual numbered wagering space for accommodating a single zero indicia, wherein the third element is configured relative to the first and second elements to form a common boundary with a subset of the first elements and to exclude the second element from contact with the subset of first elements.
2. A Roulette apparatus comprising:
a table layout adapted for placing wagers comprising first elements for individual numbered wagering spaces accommodating individual indicia from at least one (1) to thirty-six (36), a second element for an individual numbered wagering space accommodating a double zero indicia, and a third element for an individual numbered wagering space accommodating a single zero indicia abutting the second element, wherein the third element is configured to form a common boundary with a subset of the first elements and to exclude the second element from contact with the subset of first elements; and
a Roulette wheel comprising compartments numbered from at least one (1) to thirty-six (36), a compartment numbered zero and a compartment numbered double zero located either adjacent to or separated from the compartment numbered zero.
3. A Roulette apparatus as claimed in claim 2 wherein the compartments of the Roulette wheel are numbered consecutively as:
32, 15, 19, 4, 21, 2, 25, 17, 34, 6, 27, 13, 36, 11, 30, 8, 23, 10, 5, 24, 16, 33, 1, 20, 14, 31, 9, 22, 18, 29, 7, 28, 12, 35, 3, 26, 0, 00.
4. A Roulette apparatus as claimed in claim 2 wherein the compartments of the Roulette wheel are numbered consecutively as:
32, 15, 19, 4, 21, 2, 25, 17, 34, 6, 27, 13, 36, 11, 30, 8, 23, 10, 5, 24, 16, 33, 1, 20, 14, 31, 9, 22, 18, 29, 7, 28, 12, 35, 3, 26, 00, 0.
5. A method of playing a Roulette game using apparatus comprising a first set of indicia numbered from at least one (1) to thirty-six (36), a second indicia comprising a double zero and a third indicia comprising a single zero wherein the indicia are applied to a betting table layout where the third indicia is configured to form a common boundary with a sub-set of the first set of indicia and exclude the second indicia from contact with the sub-set of the first set of indicia and, a Roulette wheel having a double zero compartment and a single zero compartment that are either adjacent or separated, the method comprising the steps of:
providing betting options comprising at least one or more of:
a zero-two split;
a zero-three split;
first four corner.6. A method of playing Roulette comprising the steps of:
placing wagers on a table layout comprising:
first elements comprising individual numbered wagering spaces for accommodating individual indicia from at least one (1) to thirty-six (36);
a second element comprising an individual numbered wagering space for accommodating a double zero indicia; and
a third element comprising an individual numbered wagering space for accommodating a single zero indicia, wherein the third element is configured relative to the first and second elements to form a common boundary with a subset of the first elements and exclude the second element from contact with the first elements;
spinning a Roulette wheel comprising compartments numbered from at least one (1) to thirty-six (36), a compartment numbered zero and a compartment numbered double zero located either adjacent to or separate from the compartment numbered zero;
introducing a ball to the spinning Roulette wheel;
determining a settlement of wagers based on the compartment in which the ball comes to rest.
7. A method as claimed in claim 6 wherein the wagers are placed before the ball comes to rest in a wheel compartment.
11
0