Ex Parte Kimura

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 3, 2009

10315998 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 3, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte MASAAKI KIMURA
__________

Appeal 2008-5712
Application 10/315,998
Technology Center 3700
__________

Decided:1 March 3, 2009
__________

Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a
civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the
decided date shown on this page of the decision. The time period
does not run from the Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification
Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2008-5712
Application 10/315,998

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-3, 9-12, 14-17, and 19, directed to a
network game system. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We agree with the findings of fact, the analysis, and the conclusions
of law made by the Examiner in rejecting the claims and responding to
Appellant's argument that is set out in the Examiner's Answer. We thus
adopt the Examiner's reasoning as our own. The Examiner's rejection is
affirmed.
We add the following for emphasis.
Appellant’s Specification imposes no specific limitations on the claim
term “game” in the context of a “network game system” of claim 1 (see
Reply. Br. 2). The Examiner reasonably finds that “any application that a
user finds enjoyable could be loaded into a computer of Kemp and construed
as a game” (Ans. 12). See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-56 (Fed. Cir.
1997). (“Absent an express definition in their specification, the fact that
appellants can point to definitions or usages that conform to their
interpretation does not make the PTO's definition unreasonable when the
PTO can point to other sources that support its interpretation.”)
Appellant contends that Kemp is directed to a “peer-to-peer network
system” (App. Br. 10). However, Kemp teaches “a new type of
communication protocol provides semi-reliable transport of data over a data
channel, such as over the Internet” (Kemp, col. 1, ll. 37-39). We agree with
the Examiner that “Kemp’s teachings of computer systems communicating
over the Internet indicate that a client-server architecture is at least
contemplated, if not preferred” (Ans. 12).
2
Appeal 2008-5712
Application 10/315,998

Appellant also contends regarding the issue of double buffering that
“it would be illogical to ever discard a packet from the write queue 410 of
Kemp” (Reply Br. 4). However, the Examiner has acknowledged that Kemp
does not “explicitly teach[] that data is discarded from the write queue”
(Ans. 10), instead relying upon Renouard and Newton to teach a reason to
use double buffering in the method of Kemp (Ans. 7). Specifically, the
Examiner finds that “Newton teaches double buffering increases data
transfer speed because one buffer can be filled while the other is being
emptied” (Ans. 7).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

cdc

GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON VA 20191
3