Ex Parte lmai et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 18, 201914371328 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/371,328 07/09/2014 27538 7590 Gibson & Dernier LLP 89 Headquarters Plaza North PMB 1469 Morristown, NJ 07960 06/20/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kenichi Imai 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. 545-481 3091 EXAMINER MYHR, JUSTIN L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/20/2019 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): info@gdiplaw.com cmburgos@gdiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KENICHI LMAI, SHIGERU ENOMOTO, HIROSHI SAITO, TOSHIMASA AOKI, and SATOSHI HASHIMOTO 1 Appeal2018-008101 Application 14/371,328 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JAMES P. CALVE, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a Decision on Appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-7, which constitute all the claims pending in this Application. Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). For the reasons explained below, we AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 1 "Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(i), the real party in interest is Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., assignee of record and the owner of the entire interest in the instant application." App. Br. 2. Accordingly, we proceed on the basis that, for the purposes of this Appeal, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. is the "Appellant." Appeal2018-008101 Application 14/371,328 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter "relates to an information processing technology and, more particularly, to a technology for processing content such as games." Spec. ,r 1. Apparatus claims 1, 6, and 7 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A client information processing apparatus operated by a first user, comprising: an acquisition unit configured to acquire image data of a game application being executed and played on another client information processing apparatus of a second user, directly from the other client information processing apparatus of the second user; a display processing unit configured to display an image of game play of the game application using the acquired image data; a participation processing unit configured to allow the first user to join the game application being played on the other client information processing apparatus of the second user; and an execution unit configured to activate game software after it is determined that the first user joins the game, wherein the display processing unit displays the image of the game play while the execution unit is activating the game software. REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER Danieli et al. US 2006/0058103 Al Mar. 16, 2006 Jensen US 2006/0287106 Al Dec. 21, 2006 Spanton et al. US 2007/0117617 Al May 24, 2007 Pereira et al. US 2012/0004041 Al Jan. 5, 2012 THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Spanton, Pereira, and Danieli. 2 Appeal2018-008101 Application 14/371,328 Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Spanton, Danieli, Pereira, and Jensen. ANALYSIS Appellant argues claims 1-3 and 5-7 together. 2 App. Br. 5-8. We select claim 1 for review, with the remaining claims (i.e., claims 2, 3, and 5- 7) standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner primarily relies upon Spanton for disclosing the limitations of claim 1, but acknowledges that Spanton does not disclose the limitations of: (a) a processing unit that "displays the image of the game play while the execution unit is activating the game software," and (b) the acquisition unit acquiring image data "directly from the other client information processing apparatus of the second user." See Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner relies on the teachings of Pereira for disclosing "a continuous video feed of a game during the process of activating a gaming software on the gaming console." Final Act. 4. The Examiner further relies on the teachings of Danieli for disclosing a gaming system that "can include a direct communication connection between gaming consoles (paragraph [0045])." Final Act. 4. For each reference, the Examiner provides a separate reason for the inclusion thereof with Spanton. See Final Act. 4, 5. Appellant addresses the limitation of a client information processing apparatus acquiring game image data "directly from" another client information processing apparatus. See App. Br. 6. Appellant initially addresses Spanton stating that this reference teaches sending "gaming data 2 Appellant states that although the three independent claims 1, 6, and 7 "are of differing scope, they do share some salient features." App. Br. 5. 3 Appeal2018-008101 Application 14/371,328 to a server from which the server creates and distributes" the data to another client. App. Br. 6. Appellant contends that there is no disclosure in Spanton by which the data is conveyed "directly from the other client information processing apparatus of the second user."3 App. Br. 6. The Examiner appears to have already understood this deficiency in Spanton and, as such, relied on Danieli ( and particularly paragraph 45 thereof) for teaching "a direct communication connection between gaming consoles." Final Act. 4. The Examiner explains that Danieli "is relied upon to teach the feature of the direct connection" and that "Danieli teaches that [it is] known within the gaming media streaming art (see abstract of Danieli regarding streaming for games) that connection types relying upon direct connection are known." Ans. 2; see also id. at 4. The Examiner states that it would have been obvious to modify Spanton' s gaming system so "that two gaming devices can communicate directly with each other in order to exchange data, as shown by Danieli" (Ans. 3), "thereby allowing less load on the server" (Final Act. 5). Appellant addresses Danieli stating that, in referenced Paragraph 45, there is "no disclosure that such communications would include the spectator event." App. Br. 7; see also id. at 8. Indeed, according to Appellant, "the entirety of [Danieli' s Specification is] directed to the server- client arrangement for spectator activities." App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3. Thus, Appellant argues, "the issue is whether the direct communication between 3 Appellant's Specification provides additional clarity stating that different information processing apparatus "may directly transmit and/or receive data with one another (without going through the server 5)." Spec. ,r 17. 4 Appeal2018-008101 Application 14/371,328 game consoles disclosed in Danieli ... disclose and suggest using such channelfor transmitting a spectator event."4 App. Br. 7. First, we are instructed that "'[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.'" In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968)). Second, we are also instructed that "[t]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined ... by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents" (i.e., the Examiner's reasoning is not to be confined by that "disclosed in Danieli" as Appellant asserts). KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,419 (2007); App. Br. 7. In the matter before us, the Examiner notes Appellant's desire to limit Danieli's teachings to only client-spectator connections, and not on Danieli's broader disclosure of a direct connection being a common type of connection in the gaming art. See Ans. 2--4; (see also Danieli Fig. 8 (illustrating "peer-peer connection" 488)). 5 Thus, as indicated above, the Examiner reasons that "two gaming devices can communicate directly with 4 "The issue here is what is reasonably conveyed by Danieli ... to a skilled artisan seeking to learn about what should be done in connection with a particular situation." Reply Br. 3. 5 While it is understood that Figure 8 of Danieli discloses this peer-to-peer connection between spectators, this disclosure would also seem to at least suggest to a skilled person that a similar type of connection could likewise be employed between participants (who are equally "peers" of each other). 5 Appeal2018-008101 Application 14/371,328 each other in order to exchange data, as shown by Danieli." Ans. 3. Appellant does not apprise us of error in this reasoning. Appellant further contends that the Examiner's reason to combine Spanton with Danieli is flawed. 6 App. Br. 7. Appellant contends that there is error because Spanton does not indicate that it "is 'modifiable' to perform some function that it does not disclose." App. Br. 8. The test is not whether the reference itself discloses that it might be modifiable, instead, the test is whether the Examiner provided articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Appellant does not explain how, by using a direct connection bypassing the server, the Examiner's combination with Danieli would fail to put "less load on the server" as expressed by the Examiner. 7 Final Act. 5. Appellant's further contentions that the Examiner's reasoning "is a conclusion," or is a "resort to 'hindsight"' (App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 4), are likewise not persuasive. Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we do not find the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-7 as unpatentable over Spanton, Pereira, and Danieli. Regarding claim 4 ( which depends from claim 1 ), Appellant does not proffer arguments in an attempt to rebut the Examiner's rejection of this 6 Appellant's argument refers to "Pereira," but we understand Appellant meant Danieli because the reason addressed pertains to "less load on the server." App. Br. 8: see also Final Act. 5. 7 The Examiner states that such a direct connection has the "benefit of lowering the amount of game developer resources by allowing the communication to be between the devices instead of relying upon a server to communicate the flow of information between the devices." Ans. 4. 6 Appeal2018-008101 Application 14/371,328 claim in view of Spanton, Danieli, Pereira, and Jensen. Accordingly, we likewise sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4 as being obvious in view of these references. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation