Ex Parte Odorovic et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 28, 2019

13682561 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/682,561 11/20/2012 Aleksandar Odorovic
45594 7590 01/28/2019
NVIDIA C/0 MURABITO, HAO & BARNES LLP
TWO NORTH MARKET STREET
THIRD FLOOR
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
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.
NVID-P-SC-12-0338-USl 6670
EXAMINER
VU,VIETD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2448
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEKSANDAR ODOROVIC and
ANDRIJA BOSNJAKOVIC 1
Appeal2018-004010
Application 13/682,561
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, SHARON PENICK, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nvidia Corporation.
See App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-004010
Application 13/682,561
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm. 2
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to transmitting vector data comprising state data
of the current states of user input devices over a network to a host device ,
and to determine at the host device a current input state by comparing
current to previous vector data. Spec., ,r 4. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of remote network communication, said method
compnsmg:
a server receiving a current vector data from a remote
device over a communication network, said current vector data
comprising a composite state representation of state for a
plurality of user input devices of said remote device;
said server determining user input by performing a
comparison of said current vector data to a previously known
vector data, wherein said previously known vector data
comprises a composite state representation of a prior state for
said plurality of user input devices and wherein said previously
known vector data is stored on said server; and
using an application, said server rendering a display output
responsive to said user input;
said server transmitting said display output to said
communication network for receipt by said remote device.
2 We refer to the Specification, filed November 20, 2012 ("Spec."); the Final
Office Action, mailed April 20, 2017 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief, filed
October 19, 2017 ("Br."); and the Examiner's Answer, mailed December 13,
2017 ("Ans.").
2
Appeal2018-004010
Application 13/682,561
REFERENCES
The following prior art is relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Matsunaga
Tjew
US 2004/0167893 Al
US 2013/0111019 Al
REJECTION
Aug.26,2004
May 2, 2013
The Examiner rejected claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Tjew and Matsunaga.
ANALYSIS
Appellants' contentions are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
We adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-5) and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 3-5) and concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants contend Tjew only tracks messages received at a server
from one or more clients to detect patterns or sequences of communications
indicative of abnormal client behavior but that receipt of such messages does
not teach or suggest receipt of the claimed current vector. Br. 12. In
particular, Appellants argue Tjew's messages do not comprise a composite
state representation of the state for a plurality of user input devices including
continuous data. Id. at 12-13. Appellants further argue Tjew fails to teach
or suggest determining user input by comparing the current vector data with
previously known vector data wherein the previously known vector data
likewise comprises a state representation of a prior state for the plurality of
3
Appeal2018-004010
Application 13/682,561
user input devices. Id. at 13. Appellants also argue Tjew's client devices are
computer systems executing an interactive application, not input devices
and, therefore, Tjew fails to determine user input by performing a
comparison of current and previous vector data. Id. at 16-17.
The Examiner responds, finding the composite state representation
constituting the disputed vector data requirement is not limited to a specific
type of data. Ans. 3--4. According to the Examiner, "the claimed
'composite state representation of the plurality of input devices' would be
read more broadly to include any 'state' data of the input device (such as PC,
game console, mobile device) including state data described in paragraph
0038 of Tjew." Id. at 4. The Examiner further disagrees Tjew fails to teach
receiving input data from input devices, directing attention to paragraphs 21,
23, and 36 of Tjew disclosing a user interface and a variety of devices, such
as game consoles, mobile computing devices, computers, smart phones, and
tables understood to include "one or more integrated input component or
input interface ( e.g., PC keyboard & mouse, game console joystick, mobile
phone touch screen, etc.) to receive user input data." Id. The Examiner
addresses Appellants' contention that Tjew fails to perform a comparison of
current and previous vector data, directing attention to Tjew's disclosure of
determining whether user input or behavior is normal by performing a
comparison. Id. ( citing Tjew ,r 45).
Appellants' contentions are unpersuasive of Examiner error.
Appellants fail to provide sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us
that the vector data of claim 1 should be construed more narrowly than
concluded by the Examiner. Instead, under a broad but reasonable
interpretation, we agree with the Examiner in finding Tjew's state data
4
Appeal2018-004010
Application 13/682,561
teaches or suggests the disputed vector data. We further agree with the
Examiner in finding Tjew's disclosure of a user interface and a variety of
user devices would have been understood to include mechanisms for
receiving user input and, therefore, would have taught or suggested to one
skilled in the art the disputed user input devices. We further agree Tjew's
comparison (by detect unit 1 7) of a constructed sequence or state machine
and recorded sequence or state machine messages, teaches or suggests the
disputed comparison of current and previous vector data. See Tjew ,r 45.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and, for the
same reasons, the rejection of independent claims 8 and 16 together with the
rejection of dependent claims 3-7, 9-15, and 17-22 which are not argued
separately with particularity.
In connection with dependent claim 2 the Examiner finds "Matsunaga
teaches determining/reading the current data and previously known data, and
replacing the previously known data with the current data." Final Act. 3
citing Matsunaga ,r,r 165-66. The Examiner further finds "[i]t would have
been obvious to one skilled in the art to recognize that some data
replacement would have not been taking place if current data is the same as
previously known data." Id.
Appellants contend Matsunaga discloses only "calculating a certainty
where the input data occurs using the stochastic model by reading the
parameters of the stochastic model from the parameter storage unit", not the
limitations of dependent claim 2. Br. 20. The Examiner responds,
explaining Tjew discloses most of the argued limitations including a
composite state representation of state for a plurality of user input devices
and determining difference between a current and a previously known vector
5
Appeal2018-004010
Application 13/682,561
data while Matsunaga discloses updating the probabilistic engine by
replacing previously known data with current data when the data differs.
Ans. 4--5. The Examiner further finds, although Matsunaga does not
explicitly disclose maintaining the previously known data if there is no
change in the data, "it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to
recognize such non-updating data function because it would have enabled
preserving system resource by not performing unnecessary data update
operation." Ans. 5.
Appellants' contention is unpersuasive because it fails to address the
Examiner's findings and is an improper attack on the references individually
where the rejection is based on the combination of references. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In particular, the argued deficiencies of
Matsunaga relate to limitations for which the Examiner relies on Tjew
including the argued composite state representation of state for a plurality of
user input devices of said remote device and determination of a difference
between previously known and current vector data. Accordingly we agree
with the Examiner in finding the combination of Tjew and Matsunaga
teaches or suggests the argued limitations and we sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 2.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
6
Appeal2018-004010
Application 13/682,561
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7