Ex Parte Gavin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2019

13548791 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/548,791 07/13/2012
15827 7590
Polsinelli LLP - SIEA
3 Embarcadero Center
Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94111
01/29/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andrew Scott Gavin
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
SCEA-01031COB 9021
EXAMINER
MCCULLOCH JR, WILLIAM H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2019 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):
scea_patent_ docket@Playstation. Sony. com
uspt@polsinelli.com
sfpatent@polsinelli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW SCOTT GA VIN
Appeal2017-000799 1
Application 13/548,791 2
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Andrew Scott Gavin ("Appellant") appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the decision rejecting claims 1-21, which are the only claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). An oral
hearing was held on January 15, 2019.
We REVERSE.
1 Our Decision references Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Jan. 8,
2016), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Aug. 18, 2016) and Non-
Final Office Action ("Non-Final Act.," mailed Dec. 8, 2014).
2 Appellant identifies "Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC" as the
real party in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-000799
Application 13/ 548,791
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Appellant's "invention relates generally to electronic entertainment
devices and relates more particularly to a system and method for
dynamically loading game software for smooth game play." Spec. ,r 2.
Process claim 1, system claim 11, and manufacture ( computer-
readable storage medium) claim 21 are the independent claims on appeal,
and recite substantially similar subject matter. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for dynamically loading game software, the
method comprising:
storing information in memory regarding a plurality of
game environments, wherein each environment is associated with
one or more next environments; and
executing instructions stored in memory, wherein execution
of the instructions by a processor:
renders a game environment in which a character is located,
identifies a plurality of game environments that are next to
the rendered game environment based on stored information,
wherein each next game environment is associated with a load
boundary located in the rendered game environment, wherein the
rendered game environment includes a plurality of load
boundaries each located at a different distance to a boundary of
the rendered game environment;
detects when the character crosses one of the plurality of
load boundaries in the rendered game environment,
identifies which of the plurality of next game environments
is associated with the crossed load boundary, and
loads instructions corresponding to the identified next game
environment associated with the crossed load boundary into a
memory, wherein the loading of instructions for the identified next
game environment is complete and ready to render when the
character reaches the identified next game environment.
2
Appeal2017-000799
Application 13/ 548,791
Rejection3
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Ito4 and Powers. 5
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Ito and Powers, the
Examiner finds "Ito suggests the claim limitation of the rendered game
environment including a plurality of boundaries each located at a different
distance to a boundary of the rendered game environment." Non-Final
Act. 7; Ans. 4.
This is shown diagrammatically in Ito Figure 4 by the areas of
varying complexity and their respective amounts of memory
required. For instance, a relatively simple prairie environment
only requires one block of memory, while a relatively complex
city environment requires three blocks of memory. Such a
feature demonstrates that not only does Ito teach areas with
different storage requirements, it also indicates that different
load times are required for different types of environments.
Non-Final Act. 18; Ans. 4--5. According to the Examiner, "Ito demonstrates
in Figure 6 a Reading Start Line LN2 that triggers the loading of an adjacent
boundary when LN2 crosses an actual boundary" such that "the distance
between the avatar Vehicle VL and the reading start line LN2 relates to the
same distance as the distance between the claimed 'load boundary' and the
3 "The rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being drawn to non-
statutory subject matter is hereby withdrawn." Ans. 13.
4 US 6,999,094 Bl, issued Feb. 14, 2006.
5 WO 00/10130, published Feb. 24, 2000.
3
Appeal2017-000799
Application 13/ 548,791
'next game environment."' Non-Final Act. 8-9; Ans. 5---6. The Examiner
explains that applying the rationale that
"Ito necessarily determines the load time of the next game
environment because the load time is necessary to achieve Ito's
goal of uninterrupted video," one of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize the need to allow differing amounts of time to
load different amounts of data that represent differing game
environments. This alone is a sufficient showing of
obviousness of the claimed load boundaries being at different
distances from the game environment boundaries.
Ans. 16.
Alleging error in the rejection, Appellant contends
Ito and Powers fail to teach at least the claimed ["]rendered
game environment includes a plurality of load boundaries
each being located at a different distance to a boundary of the
rendered game environment["] and ["]identifying which of the
plurality of next game environments is associated with the
crossed load boundary.["]
Br. 10. Appellant argues "the claimed 'distance' is explicitly recited as
being between a 'load boundary' and 'the boundary of the rendered game
environment.' Such a distance cannot be taught by the purported distance
'between the Reading Start Line LN2 and the position of the vehicle VL. "'
Id. at 12-13. According to Appellant, "[n]ot only is the 'position of the
vehicle' not the same as the claimed 'boundary of the rendered game
environment,' but Ito fails to teach any plurality of load boundaries that are
at a different distances from the rendered boundary." Id. at 13. We are
persuaded by Appellant's argument.
Ito discloses "a pre-reading unit for pre-reading background data from
a recording medium when reading a start line (reference line) set at a distant
4
Appeal2017-000799
Application 13/ 548,791
position in a specified distance away from the limit line of the visual field
direction of display is crossing a new area." Ito, Abstract. Figure 6 of Ito,
on which the Examines relies, shows a vehicle VL moving in village area
AR 6 along a traveling direction and a field of view with a specified angle of
visibility e.
In a specified distance away from the visual field, a limit line of
the visual field LNl, which is to be a clipping point upon
display, is set. Furthermore, within this visual field, in a
specified distance away from the limit line of the visual field
LNl, a reading start line LN2 ... is set.
Ito 6:16-21. When reading start line LN2, which is part of the pre-reading
function for detecting which area to start pre-reading landform data, crosses
or enters city area AR 10 and village area AR 11, the targeted "pre-reading
areas are both AR 10 and AR 11 since the reading start line LN2 is crossed
in both" areas. Id. at 6:26-32.
Although we agree with the Examiner that differing amounts of time
may be required for loading differing amounts of data that represent the
different game environments, we disagree that this by itself suggests or is a
sufficient showing of the claimed load boundaries being at different
distances from a boundary of the rendered environment. Claim 1 requires
that "the rendered game environment includes a plurality of load boundaries
each located at a different distance to a boundary of the rendered game
environment." Br. 22 (Claims App.). "A load boundary is a threshold that,
when reached or crossed by the character, indicates to environment
management engine 204 that the next environment should be loaded to
memory segment 206 or memory segment 208." Spec. ,r 21; see id. Fig. 5
(load boundary 502). The Examiner acknowledges that Ito's line LN2
5
Appeal2017-000799
Application 13/ 548,791
"triggers the loading of an adjacent boundary when LN2 crosses an actual
boundary." Non-Final Act. 8 (reproducing Ito, Fig. 6). As such, the
Examiner ostensibly equates the actual boundary of the rendered game
environment (boundary that divides AR6 and AR 10) as one load boundary,
and the boundary that divides ARIO and AR 11 as the second load
boundary, such that each functions as a threshold that, when crossed by line
LN2 indicates the pre-reading of that environment. Because each of the
plurality of load boundaries is required to be located in the rendered
environment at a different distance to a boundary of the rendered game
environment, Figure 6 of Ito cannot suggest the claimed subject matter.
Ito's actual boundaries, as shown in Figure 6, are not both located in the
rendered game environment, or at a different distance to a boundary of the
rendered game environment.
The Examiner's reliance on Ito's disclosure of the different number of
memory blocks for each environment does not cure this deficiency because
the embodiment described as to Figure 6 of Ito fails to show such a
distinction. In other words, even though city area (ARIO) requires three
memory blocks and village area (ARI I) requires two memory blocks, Ito
does not differentiate between pre-reading each area based on their differing
amounts of time to load, i.e. Ito does not indicate that the load boundaries for
these areas differ. We agree with Appellant that Ito fails to teach or suggest
that "the rendered game environment includes a plurality of load boundaries
each located at a different distance to a boundary of the rendered game
environment," as required by independent claim 1. We also determine that
6
Appeal2017-000799
Application 13/ 548,791
the Examiner has not adequately shown that Powers remedies this deficiency
in Ito.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1,
and independent claims 11 and 21, which recite a substantially similar
limitation and are similarly rejected. For the same reasons, we also do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20. Cf In re Fritch,
972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("dependent claims are nonobvious if
the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious").
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
7