CurriculaWorks

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 30, 2020

2020000125 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/059,012 03/02/2016 Deanna Terzian 86935.0001/US1 8049
29693 7590 06/30/2020
WILEY
1776 K STREET N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
CUFF, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ptodocket@wiley.law
xsu@wiley.law
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEANNA TERZIAN, LYNN KRAUSE, CHARLES TERZIAN,
and FRANCIS KELLY
Appeal 2020-000125
Application 15/059,012
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–16 and 18–20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CurriculaWorks. Br.
2.
Appeal 2020-000125
Application 15/059,012

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure relates to immersive training programs that
include adaptive motivation aspects. Spec. ¶ 3.
Claims 1, 11, and 18 are independent, and claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A method of delivering cognitive training through
computer gameplay, the method comprising:
establishing a computerized first person shooter (“FPS”)
environment;
defining a mission for a user to execute within the
computerized FPS environment, wherein execution of the
mission requires the user to perform a cognitive training exercise
using FPS game mechanics within the computerized FPS
environment;
presenting the mission to the user within the computerized
FPS environment as an integral part of the computer gameplay;
and
accepting user input via a computer, wherein the user input
comprises execution of the presented mission using FPS game
mechanics within the computerized FPS environment.
Br. 12 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Cohen US 9,498,704 B1 Nov. 22, 2016
Lorenza S. Colzato et. al., Action video gaming and cognitive control:
playing first person shooter games is associated with improvement in
working memory but not action inhibition, 77 Psychological Research
234–239 (2013) (hereinafter “Colzato”)
Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art, paragraph 9 of Appellant’s Specification
(hereinafter “AAPA”)

Appeal 2020-000125
Application 15/059,012

3
REJECTIONS2
I. Claims 11–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing
to comply with the written description requirement.
II. Claims 1–16 and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Cohen, Colzato, and AAPA.

OPINION
Rejection I–Written Description (Claims 11–16)
The Examiner finds that the recitation of “processors” in claims 11–16
is not supported by Appellant’s original disclosure. Final Act. 6. Appellant
argues that support for this element in claims 11–16 is found in paragraphs 3
and 20 of the Specification, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that computerized training, implemented in a first person shooter
(FPS) game, would necessarily include the use of one or more processors.
Br. 8. In response, the Examiner explains that the issue is not whether a
processor is implicitly disclosed by a discussion in the Specification of
“computerized training,” but that claim 11 recites two different processors,
namely, “a game environment processor” and “a cognitive training
processor.” Ans. 3–5. Thus, according to the Examiner, Appellant’s
disclosure does not provide written description for the processors (plural)
recited in independent claim 11.

2 On page 3 of the Advisory Action dated February 7, 2019, the Examiner
withdraws rejections of claims 1–16 and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter (Final Act. 2–4) and of
claims 2–6 and 12–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite (Final
Act. 6–7).
Appeal 2020-000125
Application 15/059,012

4
We agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s original disclosure does
not satisfy the written description requirement for the recitation of “a game
environment processor” and “a cognitive training processor” as recited in
independent claim 11 and required by claims 12–16 depending therefrom.
Although paragraph 3 of the Specification uses the term “computerized
training,” and paragraph 20 uses the term “PC,” Appellant does not identify
any disclosure, either in the Specification or Figures, that fully sets forth “a
game environment processor” and “a cognitive training processor” as
required by claim 11. In other words, even assuming for the sake of
argument that Appellant’s original disclosure supports reciting a processor,
it does not support a recitation of two processors in the same system, much
less two processors defined as “game environment” and “cognitive training”
processors. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 11–16 as failing
to comply with the written description requirement.
Rejection II–Cohen, Colzato, and AAPA (Claims 1–16 and 18–20)
Appellant argues for the patentability of the claims subject to the
second ground of rejection, i.e., claims 1–16 and 18–20, as a group. Br. 9.
We select claim 1 as representative of the group, and claims 2–16 and 18–20
stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds Cohen discloses all the elements recited in
independent claim 1, except for specifying that the virtual environment is an
FPS environment. Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 7. To address this deficiency,
the Examiner finds Colzato discloses a method of cognitive training that
includes establishing an FPS environment.3 Id. at 9. Specifically, the

3 Although the heading for the rejection of claims 1–16 and 18–20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 lists AAPA as one of the applied pieces of prior art (see Final
Appeal 2020-000125
Application 15/059,012

5
Examiner finds “[t]he bulk of Colzato . . . discloses measuring cognitive
control tasks in [an] FPS environment,” and Colzato teaches “presenting a
cognitive training exercise within the FPS environment as an integral part of
FPS gameplay.” Id. at 10 (citing Colzato, p. 238). The Examiner reasons
that it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art to
modify Cohen’s system “to specify that the virtual environment to perform
the cognitive training could be a first person shooter (FPS) environment in
order to take advantage of the cognitive tasks required in a FPS game.” Id.
at 11. Thus, the Examiner’s reasoning for the proposed modification to the
system of Cohen relies on a finding that Colzato includes cognitive tasks in
an FPS game.
Appellant asserts the Examiner erred by combining the teachings of
Cohen and Colzato because doing so “would render at least Colzato
unsuitable for its intended purpose.”4 Br. 10; see also id. at 9 (quoting
MPEP § 2143.01(V) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1994))).
Specifically, Appellant argues “the intent of Colzato was to study the impact
of playing video games, including FPS games, on cognitive skills[, and t]o
accomplish this, Colzato examined the performance of two populations –
‘experienced video game players . . . and individuals with little to no
videogame experience’ - on various cognitive control tasks.” Id. at 9–10.

Act. 7), the Examiner appears to rely on AAPA only for elements recited in
claims other than claim 1, e.g., claim 8, which recites “developing a
motivational profile for the user” (see id. at 11–12).
4 Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s findings of fact with respect to
Cohen and AAPA. See Br. 9–10. Appellant does not specifically address
the Examiner’s stated rationale, set forth on page 11 of the Final Office
Action, for combining the teachings of Cohen and Colzato. See id.
Appeal 2020-000125
Application 15/059,012

6
According to Appellant, “had Colzato delivered its cognitive training
exercises as integrated into an FPS game, the line between its two
populations would have ceased to exist - the non-gamer population would
have become a gamer population, and no conclusions regarding the impact
of gaming on cognitive performance could have been drawn.” Id. at 10.
The Examiner replies that “Colzato is used merely to teach that a FPS
environment would be a good or obvious choice for a virtual environment
disclosed by Cohen.” Ans. 8.
After stating that Cohen discloses a system for learning and cognitive
training in a virtual environment and fails to disclose the specifics of the
virtual environment, namely, that it is based on an FPS, the Examiner poses
the inquiry “[i]n choosing a virtual environment for Cohen, would one of
ordinary skill in the art choose Farmville or a commerce virtual environment
or would one choose a virtual environment that required cognitive tasks[?]”
Id. at 9. In responding, the Examiner then finds Colzato discloses that
“‘First Person Shooter’ (FPS) games require players to develop a flexible
mindset to rapidly react and monitor fast moving visual and auditory stimuli,
and to inhibit erroneous actions,” which the Examiner concludes “are
considered to be cognitive control tasks.” Id. Thus, as noted above, the
Examiner’s reasoning rests on the finding that Colzato discloses cognitive
tasks in an FPS game.
Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of Examiner error. First,
the portion of the MPEP quoted by Appellant regarding inoperability states,
“If a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being
modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion
or motivation to make the proposed modification.” MPEP § 2143.01(V)
Appeal 2020-000125
Application 15/059,012

7
(citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1994))). In Gordon, the
proposed modification to the sole reference cited by the Examiner rendered
the device disclosed inoperable for its purpose. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d at
902. Here, the Examiner’s proposed modification is to the system disclosed
by Cohen, not Colzato. See Final Act. 11. Thus, the principle of rendering
the modified reference unsuitable for its intended use does not apply as
argued by Appellant because the Examiner does not propose to modify the
system in Colzato. Appellant makes no assertion that the system disclosed
by Cohen would be rendered unsuitable for its intended purpose, when
modified according to teachings of Colzato.
Second, the Examiner’s finding that Colzato discloses presenting a
cognitive training exercise within an FPS environment as an integral part of
FPS gameplay (Final Act. 10) is supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. Colzato’s Abstract states:
The interest in the influence of videogame experience in our
daily life is constantly growing. “First Person Shooter” (FPS)
games require players to develop a flexible mindset to rapidly
react and monitor fast moving visual and auditory stimuli, and
to inhibit erroneous actions. This study investigated whether and
to which degree experience with such videogames generalizes to
other cognitive control tasks.
(Emphasis added). Colzato then explains that “findings support the idea that
playing FPS games is associated with enhanced flexible updating of task-
relevant information without affecting impulsivity.” Id. Colzato’s Table 1
(the sole table included in Colzato) summarizes the measured cognitive
Appeal 2020-000125
Application 15/059,012

8
performance advantages found in persons defined as video game players5
(VGPs) compared with non-video game players (NVGPs). Colzato, p. 236.
Colzato concludes that video game players outperformed non-video game
players. Id. at 237. Thus, Colzato teaches that FPS games require mental
activity that appears to carry over to cognitive tests outside of FPS games.
See id. at 236–237. Based on these teachings, we agree with the Examiner
that Colzato teaches cognitive tasks performed in an FPS game. See Final
Act. 11. Consequently, the Examiner’s stated reason for modifying the
system disclosed by Cohen (see id.) is supported by rational underpinnings.
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments regarding the
patentability of claims 1–16 and 18–20, but none of them identify Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–16 and 18–20 as
unpatentable over Cohen, Colzato, and AAPA.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
11–16 112(a) Written Description 11–16
1–16, 18–20 103 Cohen, Colzato, AAPA 1–16, 18–
20

5 Video game players participating in the Colzato’s study played only FPS
games. Colzato, p. 235.
Appeal 2020-000125
Application 15/059,012

9
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome
1–16, 18–
20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED