Zynga Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 31, 2021

2020004008 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2021)

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. 15/607,298 05/26/2017 Jason Bucher 3291.374US1 2968 107322 7590 03/31/2021 Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner / Zynga P.O. Box 2938 Minneapolis, MN 55402 EXAMINER ZHANG, YINGCHUAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2021 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): patents@zynga.com slw@blackhillsip.com uspto@slwip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JASON BUCHER and TROY STEINBAUER Appeal 2020-004008 Application 15/607,298 Technology Center 3700 Before BRETT C. MARTIN, HYUN J. JUNG, and BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s Final decision to reject claims 1–20.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appellant identifies Zynga Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-004008 Application 15/607,298 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below with emphases added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: causing automatic presentation of a push notification about a game on an electronic user device of a player of the game, presentation of the push notification being performed on the user device outside of a game application that is installed on the user device and that is executable to load a game instance of the game in a game user interface on the user device, the game being a computer implemented multi player online game, and the push notification comprising: contextual information indicating occurrence of an in-game event; and one or more action elements for respective user- initiated actions related to the in-game event, each action element being a user-selectable user interface element displayed as part of the push notification; receiving user input indicating user-selection of a particular one of the one or more action elements; and in an automated operation performed responsive to the user input indicating user-selection of the selected action element and performed using circuitry configured to perform the automated operation, causing performance of an in-game action corresponding to the selected action element without executing or switching to the game application on the user device. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-004008 Application 15/607,298 3 REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Sestak US 2013/0296059 A1 Nov. 7, 2013 Webb US 2016/0310843 A1 Oct. 27, 2016 SagiSagi Possibility To Send Resources To Friends In Game_ 07312014.pdf (available at https://forum.supercell. com/showthread.php/344988- Possibility-To-Send-Resources-To- Friends-ln-Game) July 31, 2014 D’areglia Interactive Notifications with Notification Actions - Think & Build- 10062014.pdf (available at http://www.thinkandbuildit/interactive- notifications-with-notification- actions/) October 6, 2014 REJECTION The Appellant seeks our review of the rejection of: claims 1–8, 13–16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Webb and D’areglia; claims 9, 10, and 17–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Webb, D’areglia, and SagiSagi; and claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Webb, D’areglia, and Sestak.2 2 The Appellant does not list the rejection of dependent claims 11 and 12. See Appeal Br. 8. The omission is apparently a clerical error because the Appellant argues for all dependent claims. See id. at 14 (“In addition, any claim depending from a non-obvious independent claim is also non- obvious.”). Appeal 2020-004008 Application 15/607,298 4 OPINION The Examiner determines that Webb teaches substantially all the limitations of claim 1 except “Webb does not disclose causing performance of an in-game action corresponding to the selected action element without executing or switching to the game application on the user device.” Final 2– 3 (citing Webb ¶¶ 34, 43, 51, 56, Fig. 2). In particular, for the recited “push notification” with “one or more action elements for respective user-initiated actions related to the in-game event,” the Examiner relies on Figure 2’s Share 220 and Registration 230 and paragraph 56 of Webb. Id. at 3. The Examiner also determines that “D’areglia teaches a new feature [so that] users can directly interact with push or local notifications without opening the application.” Final 3–4 (citing D’areglia ¶¶ 1, 2). The Examiner states that “it would have been obvious . . . to have modified the method disclosed by Webb to include the notification actions without opening the application, as taught by Yari D’areglia, in order to make it more convenient for the players to address multiple pending actions needed when they are engaged in multiple games at the same time.” Id. at 4. For independent claims 13 and 20, the Examiner refers to the rejection of claim 1. Id. at 6. The Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that Webb discloses “one or more action elements for respective user-initiated actions related to the in-game event.” Appeal Br. 9–10 (citing Final 3), 14. According to the Appellant, Webb teaches that selecting a start/launch option “causes the user ‘to leave whatever the user is currently doing,’” and an “event is clearly launched after the user has been forwarded to the different interface.” Id. at 10 (discussing Webb ¶ 56). Appeal 2020-004008 Application 15/607,298 5 The Appellant, thus, argues that “the option in [Webb’s] notification is clearly not for performing a particular user-initiated action, but is to facilitate switching to the game event interface,” “merely allows the user to switch to the notified game,” and “does not have an action element for performing a user-initiated action in a specific in-game event.” Appeal Br. 10–11. The Appellant also argues that D’areglia does not remedy this asserted deficiency. Id. at 11. The Examiner answers that the Appellant does not address part of the rejection that additionally relies on Figure 2 of Webb. Ans. 11 (responding to Appeal. Br. 10) (citing Webb ¶ 34, Fig. 2, Share 220, Registration 230). The Examiner quotes Webb’s teachings regarding interface 200 providing start/launch option 250 and Webb’s pop-up notification including a user selectable option to participate in the in-game event. Id. (quoting Webb ¶¶ 34, 56). The Examiner also responds that the rejection does not rely on switching to a game and quotes Webb’s teaching that it “allows the user to automatically participate in the in-game event if selected.” Id. (responding to Appeal Br. 11) (quoting Webb ¶ 56). The Appellant replies that “limitations defined by representative claim 1 with respect to the one or more action elements [are] not limited to the action elements being for respective user-initiated actions related to the in- game event” and are linked to the limitation “responsive to user input indicating user-selection of the selected action element, causing performance of an in-game action corresponding to the selected action element without executing or switching to the game application on the user device.” Reply 2. According to the Appellant, claim 1 “specifies that the action automatically performable by selection of the action element be an in- Appeal 2020-004008 Application 15/607,298 6 game action,” which is not taught by the actions triggered by Share 220 or Registration 230 of Webb. Id. The Appellant argues that “Share button 220 allows a user to share information about an in-game event with other users,” which “is not an in-game action,” and “Registration button 230 allows the user to register for an event,” which must necessarily be before gameplay. Id. (citing Webb ¶ 31). The Appellant, thus, argues that interface 200’s Share 220 and Registration 230 do not teach “a push notification that comprises one or more action elements . . . related to an in-game event, and wherein, responsive to selection of an action element, performance of an in- game action corresponding to the selected action element is caused without executing or switching to the game application on the user device.” Id. at 2– 3. The Appellant also replies that the Examiner’s reads too much into “automatically participate in the game event” and that Webb makes clear that “automatic participation” means “allow[ing] the user to leave whatever the user is currently doing (i.e. playing one game) and enter into a different game corresponding with the in-game event.” Reply Br. 3 (citing Webb ¶ 56). The Appellant, thus, contends that switching games “is not an in- game action consistent with representative claim 1.” Id. Analysis Turning to whether paragraph 56 of Webb teaches a push notification that includes “one or more action elements . . . related to the in-game event” and “causing performance of an in-game action corresponding to the selected action element” (Final 3), paragraph 56 describes “[n]otifications” that “may pop up and indicate to the user that the in-game event is about to begin or has begun” and “may include a user selectable option that allows Appeal 2020-004008 Application 15/607,298 7 the user to automatically participate in the in-game event if selected” that “would allow the user to leave whatever the user is currently doing (i.e. playing one game) and enter into a different game corresponding with the in- game event.” Webb ¶ 56. Because paragraph 56 describes a notification with a selectable option that allows leaving one game so that the user can enter another game to participate in an in-game event, we determine that paragraph 56 does not teach or suggest the claimed “push notification comprising . . . one or more action elements . . . related to the in-game event” that “caus[es] performance of an in-game action corresponding to the selected action element.” See also Webb ¶¶ 50–56 (describing further Webb’s notifications). The rejection before us does not include an explanation why one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood entering into a different game teaches or suggests an “in-game event.” See Final 3. Also, we agree with the Appellant that reading paragraph 56 in its entirety indicates that Webb’s notification “allow[ing] the user to automatically participate in the in-game event” does not mean participating in the in-game event without first entering into the game with the event. See Reply Br. 3. The Examiner also relies on Figure 2 of Webb. Final 2–3. Webb states that Figure 2 shows detailed events interface 200. Webb ¶ 29. Detailed events interface 200 can include features that “allow a user to ‘share’ 220 the information about the in-game event with other users” and “allow a user to register 230 for the event.” Id. ¶ 31. “Registration may include indicating an intention to participate with respect to the in-game event” and “a willingness to receive notifications.” Id. Appeal 2020-004008 Application 15/607,298 8 Webb does not teach or suggest that Share 220 and Registration 230 of detailed events interface 200 teaches or suggests a “push notification” that includes “action elements . . . related to the in-game event” and “in an automated operation performed responsive to the user input . . . causing performance of an in-game action corresponding to the selected action element.” See Webb ¶ 31. Webb does not describe detailed events interface 200 as a “push notification” and does not describe Share 220 and Registration 230 as related to an in-game event or causing performance of an in-game event, as required by claim 1. See Webb ¶¶ 29–32; see also id. ¶¶ 50–56 (describing pop-up notifications for registered events). The Examiner also does not explain how or why one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Webb’s Share 220 and Registration 230 of detailed events interface 200 teaches or suggests claim 1’s “push notification” that includes “action elements for respective user-initiated actions related to the in-game event” and “causing performance of an in- game action corresponding to the selected action element.” See Final 2–4. The Examiner does not rely on D’areglia for teaching or suggesting the limitations discussed above because the Examiner determines that “D’areglia teaches a new feature [so that] users can directly interact with push or local notifications without opening the application.” Final 3–4 (citing D’areglia ¶¶ 1, 2). The Examiner also determines that “it would have been obvious . . . to have modified the method disclosed by Webb to include the notification actions without opening the application, as taught by Yari D’areglia, in order to make it more convenient for the players to address multiple pending actions needed when they are engaged in multiple games at the same time.” Appeal 2020-004008 Application 15/607,298 9 Final 4. The Examiner’s asserted reason for combining Webb and D’areglia fails to cure the deficiencies discussed above. In view of the foregoing, the Appellant persuades us that Webb and D’areglia fail to teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 1. Because the Examiner refers to claim 1 for the rejection of independent claims 13 and 20 (Final 6), the Appellant persuades us that Webb and D’areglia fail to teach or suggest all the limitations of independent claims 13 and 20. The Examiner also determines that claims 2–8, which depend ultimately from claim 1, and claims 14–16, which depend ultimately from claim 13, are unpatentable over Webb and D’areglia. Final 4–6. The Examiner further determines that dependent claims 9, 10, and 17–19 are unpatentable over Webb, D’areglia, and SagiSagi (id. at 6–8) and claims 11 and 12 are unpatentable over Webb, D’areglia, and Sestak (id. at 8–9). The Examiner does not rely on SagiSagi and Sestak for teaching the limitations analyzed above. See id. at 6–9. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1– 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 are reversed. Appeal 2020-004008 Application 15/607,298 10 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–8, 13–16, 20 103(a) Webb, D’areglia 1–8, 13–16, 20 9, 10, 17– 19 103(a) Webb, D’areglia, SagiSagi 9, 10, 17– 19 11, 12 103(a) Webb, D’areglia, Sestak 11, 12 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED