11319794 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 26, 2011)

Ex Parte Bemmel

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 26, 2011

11319794 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 26, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/319,794 12/28/2005 Jeroen Van Bemmel 2100.026500/BEMMEL 14 5083 46290 7590 07/26/2011 WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON 10333 RICHMOND, SUITE 1100 HOUSTON, TX 77042 EXAMINER JONES, MARCUS D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3717 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/26/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte JEROEN VAN BEMMEL ________________ Appeal 2010-001394 Application 11/319,794 Technology Center 3700 ________________ Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, and MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal No. 2010-001394 Application No. 11/319,794 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal by the real party in interest, Lucent Technologies Inc. (hereinafter “Appellant”), under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final rejection of claims 1-20, the only claims on appeal. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. References Relied on by the Examiner Hansen U.S. 2004/0224769 A1 Nov. 11, 2004 Niemela U.S. 2005/0202872 A1 Sep. 15, 2005 The Invention This invention pertains to a mobile virtual reality game that correlates a virtual field in the virtual game with a player’s real-world geographical location. Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method for providing mobile gaming in a wireless communication network, comprising: provisioning a virtual game space operable for use with a virtual game, wherein the virtual game space comprises a plurality of virtual fields that correspond with cells in at least one wireless communication network; and processing at least one notification of a real world event received from a mobile device of a player of the virtual game, wherein state changes in the virtual game are related to the processed events. (App. Br. Claims App’x. A-2). Appeal No. 2010-001394 Application No. 11/319,794 3 The Rejections on Appeal 1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Niemela (Ans. 3). 2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Niemela and Hansen (Ans. 4). ISSUE Would one of ordinary skill in the virtual gaming art have had reason to correspond virtual fields in the game with actual wireless communication cells when it was known that portable game terminals can wirelessly communicate with other game terminals or a game server? FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Niemela teaches a “wireless portable game terminal” that communicates through a “telecommunication system” (Niemela ¶ [0020]). 2. Niemela teaches the ability of a portable game terminal to communicate “with other game terminals…or a game server” (Niemela ¶ [0020]). 3. Niemela’s game terminals include a processing unit that processes game data and which can transfer “game data to and from another game terminal” (Niemela ¶ [0027]). PRINCIPLES OF LAW “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of Appeal No. 2010-001394 Application No. 11/319,794 4 obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “[H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. ANALYSIS All claims on appeal (claims 1-20) are argued together (App. Br. 9-12, Reply Br. 2-6). All claims require “a plurality of virtual fields that correspond with cells in at least one wireless communication network” (underlining added). The Examiner finds that paragraphs 6 and 11 of Niemela teach a virtual game having “virtual fields that correspond with cells” because each game terminal of Niemela “is connected to a transceiver station (BTS) and connected to PSTN/internet” (Ans. 3, see also 7). Paragraph 6 of Niemela is a listing of the various features and components of his game terminal, e.g., it contains a radio transceiver, a loudspeaker, a microphone, and a processing unit coupled to the transceiver, loudspeaker and microphone, which is configured to process game data and transfer it to and from another game terminal or game server. Paragraph 11 of Niemela discusses real-time network gaming stating that both “speech and game data may be transferred between game terminals, which are separated even by a large geographical distance.” While both of these paragraphs address a game terminal and the ability to transfer data between geographically distant terminals, neither address the claimed requirement of a virtual game having “a plurality of Appeal No. 2010-001394 Application No. 11/319,794 5 virtual fields that correspond with cells” in a telecommunication network. The Examiner has not identified how Niemela might provide one skilled in the art with an inference or a creative step that would cause them to configure a virtual game wherein virtual fields in the game correspond with real-world locations. Niemela discloses a system in which gamers in a multi-person gaming environment can communicate with each other using a radio connection (Niemela ¶¶ [0011] and [0020]). The Examiner finds that Niemela teaches a base transceiver station (BTS) that enables different game terminals to communicate with each other (Ans. 3, 7-8). The Examiner also determined that through “the use of sectoring and splitting techniques one can implement communications handoffs that allows units connected to the system to move from cell to cell” (Ans. 3). We are not persuaded that in view of these findings and determinations, Niemela teaches a correspondence between virtual fields in a virtual game and real-world cells as claimed. Stated another way, the Examiner’s finding that Niemela teaches “a system that allows portable gaming units to wirelessly connect to a virtual gaming space” does not persuade us that Niemela teaches a virtual gaming environment such that a user’s location in the virtual game is a function of the user’s location in the real world (Ans. 8). In view of the record presented, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of clams 1-20 as being obvious in view of Niemela. CONCLUSION OF LAW One of ordinary skill in the virtual gaming art would not have had reason to correspond virtual fields in the game with actual wireless Appeal No. 2010-001394 Application No. 11/319,794 6 communication cells when it was known that portable game terminals can wirelessly communicate with other game terminals or a game server. DECISION 1. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Niemela is reversed. 2. The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Niemela and Hansen is reversed. REVERSED MP