Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 10, 20212021000220 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/344,379 11/04/2016 Stephan J. Zachwieja 360443-US-NP 5722 147148 7590 12/10/2021 Ray Quinney & Nebeker - Microsoft 36 South State Street Suite 1400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 EXAMINER LIDDLE, JAY TRENT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/10/2021 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): mspatent@rqn.com usdocket@microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte STEPHAN J. ZACHWIEJA, WISGARY FRANCISCO TORRES MARRERO, JOAQUIN BOLBRUGGE CHAVOLLA, SCOTT NATHANIEL MUNRO, MARCUS MICHAEL POWERS, and JAMES LAO ____________ Appeal 2021-000220 Application 15/344,379 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE. Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision in the Final Office Action (dated Mar. 18, 2020, hereinafter “Final 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC. is identified as the real party in interest in Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed June 17, 2020, hereinafter “Appeal Br.”). Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000220 Application 15/344,379 2 Act.”) rejecting claims 1, 4–18, and 20–22. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM. INVENTION Appellant’s invention is directed to a “video game platform based on video game state data.” Spec. Para. 3. Claims 1, 14, and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A system, comprising: at least one processor; a data store configured to store video game state data for a plurality of video game play sessions; an intake coordinator configured to, by the at least one processor, receive: first video game state data representing a video game environment over a first video game session while a video game is being played by a first user, wherein the first video game state data comprises a plurality of frames having time stamps, and wherein the first video game state data specifies some of the plurality of frames as key frames containing sufficient information to visually recreate a video game environment for the first video game session and some of the plurality of frames as delta frames, wherein the respective delta frames represent changes in the video game environment with respect to the key frame or a previous delta frame; and annotated video game state data for the first video game session, the annotated video game state data comprising one or more user annotations provided by a user to at least a respective one of the key frames or a respective one of the plurality of delta frames representing the video game Appeal 2021-000220 Application 15/344,379 3 environment for the first video game session, the one or more user annotations: applied to at least one displayed video game object within the video game environment, that is: 1) positioned at a first coordinate location within the video game environment and 2) viewable at a first user-selectable viewing angle that is selectable within the video game environment, visually indicating a particular aspect of importance within the represented video game environment for the first video game session, and viewable when the at least one displayed video game object within the video game environment is rendered at a second user-selectable viewing angle within the video game environment that is different from the first viewing angle; and a distribution coordinator configured to, by the at least one processor, transmit the first video game state data to a requesting client associated with a second user, wherein the first video game state data allows the requesting client to recreate the video game environment, including the user annotations. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4–17, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Norman2 and Perry.3 II. The Examiner rejects claims 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Norman, Parker,4 and Perry. 2 Norman et al., US 2014/0113718 Al, published Apr. 24, 2014. 3 Perry et al., US 2014/0179424 Al, published June 26, 2014. 4 Parker et al., US 2016/0193530 Al, published July 7, 2016. Appeal 2021-000220 Application 15/344,379 4 III. The Examiner rejects claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Norman, Perry, and Shaw.5,6 ANALYSIS Rejection I Appellant does not present arguments for the patentability of claims 4–17 and 22 apart from claim 1. See Appeal Br. 13–16. Therefore, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we select claim 1 as the representative claim to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims, with claims 4–17 and 22 standing or falling with claim 1. The Examiner finds that Norman discloses most of the limitations of independent claim 1, but “does not appear to explicitly disclose a first coordinate location for the annotation and two viewing angles.” Final Act. 2–3 (citing Norman, paras. 23–30, 34, 35, Fig. 7). Nonetheless, the Examiner finds Perry discloses the missing limitations. See id. at 3–4 (citing Perry, paras. 83, 91, 95, Fig. 3c). Thus, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art “to combine the teachings of Perry with the disclosure of Norman such that users could tag particular areas of the video game in the game itself thus directing later viewers to particularly noteworthy parts of the game play by using the tags.” Id. at 7 (citing Perry, paras. 83, 91). According to the Examiner, once an 5 Shaw et al., US 2007/0173325 Al, published July 26, 2007. 6 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 23 as unpatentable over Norman, Parker, and Perry and of claims 18 and 20 as unpatentable over Norman, Parker, and Loeb (US 2017/0182426 Al, published June 29, 2017) have been withdrawn by the Examiner. Examiner’s Answer (dated July 9, 2020, hereinafter “Ans.”) 3. Appeal 2021-000220 Application 15/344,379 5 event is tagged in Norman, as modified by Perry, “a viewer will see that event in Norman from either a first player camera angle or a second player camera angle.” Id. at 4 (citing Norman, para. 46). Appellant argues that the combined teachings of Norman and Perry fail to teach annotation of the video game state data where the video game state data “positioned at a first coordinate location within the video game environment and . . . viewable when the at least one displayed video game object within the video game environment is rendered at a second user-selectable viewing angle” as is presently claimed. Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis added). Appellant contends that “[t]here is no indication that the annotation is made to the video game state data, nor is there any indication in Perry that the annotation is associated with a location in the video game environment.” Id. at 13. According to Appellant, Perry “inextricably ties the tag data to the video recording and viewing angle of the user at the time the annotations are provided and not to the video game state data.” Id. at 15. Furthermore, Appellant asserts that even though “Norman appears to teach the recreation of a video game environment based on game state data and allow multiple perspectives of the recreation, there is no mechanism by which the screen coordinate tag data of Perry would apply to the video game environment recreation by state data of Norman.” Id. Thus, Appellant takes the position that “it is unclear how the recreation of a video game environment from game state data of Norman would combine with the annotations based on video frames and screen coordinates of Perry.” Id. Appeal 2021-000220 Application 15/344,379 6 Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because Appellant cannot show nonobviousness by attacking Norman and Perry individually when the rejection as articulated by the Examiner is based on a combination of Norman and Perry. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. [Each reference] must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.”). In this case, Norman discloses a multi-user online gaming system including, inter alia, an online game session server system accessed by a plurality of users to interactively establish multiple game sessions and a spectator server accessed by users who wish to view active games. Norman, para. 4. When a spectator selects a particular game for viewing, Norman discloses that the spectator server receives data chunks 150 (video game state data) from the game session server system, such that the spectator server “can generate the same graphics and visual representation of the active game in real-time” (recreate game environment). Id. at paras. 32, 33. Norman further discloses that data chunks 150 have “complete data for the active game being viewed” and include “keyframes, which are effectively snapshots of a particular game at a particular point in time” such that a user can time-shift using included time stamps. Id. at para. 34. Norman also discloses that a particular player can be selected for viewing, and, thus, different camera views of different players can be obtained. Id. at para. 46. In addition, Perry discloses tagging data at a location in a video frame identified by a user, and, thus, “associat[ing] the tag data to an object shown Appeal 2021-000220 Application 15/344,379 7 in the screen, or link the tag data to some even[t] shown in the screen.” Perry, para. 83. Thus, the Examiner’s combination of Norman and Perry constitutes an improvement to Norman’s gaming system to tag data chunks 150 (video game state data) in the same manner as taught by Perry to lead to a predictable result, namely, to “direct[] later viewers to particularly noteworthy parts of the game play by using the tags.” See Final Act. 7; see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). In particular, we agree with the Examiner that each of Norman and Perry discloses “that certain events may be of great importance to a user”, and, thus, “the combination of Norman in view of Perry would allow for a user to add [Perry’s] annotations within the gameplay of Norman.” See Ans. 5, 6 (citing Norman, para. 48; Perry, para. 83). Accordingly, the Examiner is correct that “adding in . . . [Perry’s] annotation ability would make the playback of . . . [Norman’s] keyframes and chunks more interesting to various users as a way to ‘comment’ on gameplay similar to how sports commentators will highlight various actions of a previous play.” Id. at 6. Thus, the Examiner’s modification of Norman, according to Perry, is well within the skill of a person having ordinary skill in this art and Appellant has not persuasively shown otherwise. Lastly, we agree with the Examiner’s position that because “Norman discloses that spectators of the game can vary which camera view point they Appeal 2021-000220 Application 15/344,379 8 wish to view the game from and can switch said view point at any time,” in the combination of Norman and Perry, “depending upon which camera view a user chooses, the view of the annotated [video game] state will change based on the selected camera.” Ans. 4 (citing Norman, para. 46), 5. Hence, the Examiner is correct that “if a user selects one player’s camera view [in the combination of Norman and Perry] the annotated event may appear on the left, versus on the right from a different camera angle.” Id. at 5. In conclusion, the Examiner’s findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and the Examiner’s legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-founded. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 1 as unpatentable over Norman and Perry. Claims 4–17 and 22 fall with claim 1. Rejections II and III Appellant relies on the same unpersuasive arguments discussed supra. See Appeal Br. 16. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above, we likewise sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 18 and 20 as unpatentable over Norman, Parker, and Perry and of claim 21 as unpatentable over Norman, Perry, and Shaw. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4–18, and 20–22 is affirmed. Appeal 2021-000220 Application 15/344,379 9 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4–17, 22 103 Norman, Perry 1, 4–17, 22 18, 20 103 Norman, Parker, Perry 18, 20 21 103 Norman, Perry, Shaw 21 Overall outcome 1, 4–18, 20–22 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2019). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation