Ex Parte KuwaharaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 201613415079 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/415,079 03/08/2012 23117 7590 08/02/2016 NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Masato KUWAHARA 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. MEN-723-3333 7376 EXAMINER PATEL,DHAIRYAA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2455 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2016 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MASATO KUWAHARA Appeal2015-004226 Application 13/415,079 1 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, KEVIN C. TROCK, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-13, and 15-21. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant indicates the Real Party in Interest is Nintendo Co., Ltd. App. Br. 3. 2 Claims 2 and 14 were cancelled. App. Br. 23, 26. Appeal2015-004226 Application 13/415,079 Invention The claimed invention "relates to a system for executing an application program, including a process for exchanging communication data via a communication network." Spec. 1. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A server device, comprising: a storage unit configured to store a user/ device ID and a corresponding first parameter, the user/device ID indicating a user and/or an information-processing device, the first parameter indicating an amount of data that the user or the information-processing device has a right to communicate via an electronic communications network; a processing system including at least one processor, the processing system configured to: obtain the user/ device ID and a corresponding retail ID from the information-processing device having a function to execute an application program; the retail ID being an identification of at least one application program; perform, as a result of obtaining the user/device ID and the corresponding retail ID, an adding process to add to the first parameter an amount of data that corresponds to the retail ID of the at least one application program; obtain an amount of data that has been communicated by the information-processing device via the electronic communications network; and subtract the obtained amount of data from the first parameter corresponding to the user/device ID. Rejections Claims 1, 3-13, and 16-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2006/0074701 Al; publ. Apr. 6, 2006), 2 Appeal2015-004226 Application 13/415,079 Hutchinson-Kay (US 2011/0151978 Al; publ. June 23, 2011), and Sotoike (US 2011/0105221 Al; publ. May 5, 2011). Claims 15 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu and Hutchinson-Kay. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of record in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own, ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis as follows. Irzdependent Claims 1, 13, 16, and 17 Appellant contends the Examiner erred rejecting independent claims 1, 13, 16, and 17 because the combination of Liu, Hutchinson-Kay, and Sotoike fails to teach or suggest the "obtaining," "adding," and "subtracting" limitations recited in these claims. App. Br. 11-17; Reply Br. 2-5. Appellant argues Hutchinson-Kay simply relates to transferring player rights of a user between game systems and that there is no discussion of the disputed limitations in the reference. Appellant also argues Sotoike relates to maintaining a reputation score for users and that there is no discussion of the disputed limitations in that reference either. We disagree. 3 Appeal2015-004226 Application 13/415,079 Here, with respect to the "obtaining'' limitation, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Hutchinson-Kay: [T]eaches obtain[ing] an amount of data that has been communicated by the information-processing device via the electronic communications network (Paragraph[s] 72-75, 79). In Paragraph 72, Hutchinson-Kay teaches a player interacts in a player session with a gaming machine in a first gaming system (GSA). A set of parameters representing such player rights are stored in the player rights data structure with predetermined level of resolution and history and associated with a player rights identification code (PRID) (i.e. amount of data that is communicated). In Paragraph 74, Hutchinson-Kay teaches the second gaming system GSB communicates the PRID indicia to the gaming clearing system ( GSC) and request a transfer of player rights to the GSB. Ans. 3. The Examiner goes on to find, and we also agree, that Hutchinson-Kay teaches: [T]hat data in the form of all or a selection of the recorded set of parameters representing the player rights stored in the player rights data structure associated with the original PRID is retrieved from the database (i.e. obtain an amount of data that has been communicated) and is communicated to the gaming clearing system GSC (obtaining an amount of data that has been communicated the information-processing device via the communication network). Ans. 3--4 (citing Hutchinson-Kay i-f 79). With respect to the "adding" limitation, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Hutchinson-Kay teaches: [A Jn adding process to add the first parameter an amount of data that corresponds to the retail ID of the at least one application program (Paragraph 68, 72-74). In Paragraph 62, Hutchinson- Kay teaches each gaming system has a set of gaming machines GMA 1 ... GMA2 ... GMB 1 ... GMBn, where n is an arbitrary 4 Appeal2015-004226 Application 13/415,079 number that are communicatively coupled to at least one game server 102A and 1028 each being communicatively coupled to central database DB-A, DB-B. The game servers each comprise a player rights recording module devices to record a set of parameters representing player rights and to store set of parameters in a data stn1cture comprised in the central database (i.e. add the first parameter an amount of data). Ans. 5. With respect to the "subtracting" limitation, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Sotoike teaches: [S]ubtract[ing] the obtained amount of data from the first parameter corresponding to the user/device ID (Paragraph 211, 225, 227). In Paragraph 225, Sotoike teaches the bad reputation score as to the player of the game apparatus being the sender of the disconnection notification (i.e. obtained amount of data corresponding to the user/ device) whose identification information is updated. Furthermore, the received disconnection notification is erased and the identification information of the game apparatus being the sender of the disconnection is also erased (deleted) (i.e. subtracted). Examiner is equating deleting/erasing the received disconnection notification and the identification information of the game apparatus as subtracting the amount of data obtained corresponding to the user/device. Examiner would like to point out that when the notification and the identification information is deleted it means, the data is subtracted or deleted. Ans. 7. Accordingly, we find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellant's arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 13, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 5 Appeal2015-004226 Application 13/415,079 Independent Claim j 5 Appellant contends the Examiner erred rejecting independent claim 15 because the combination of Liu and Hutchinson-Kay fails to teach or suggest the limitations "attachment connector" and "transmit the medium ID and the user/device ID to a remote server device," as recited in that claim. App. Br. 18-20; Reply Br. 5---6. Appellant argues that communicating between various modules, as shown in Liu, does not teach the recited "attachment connector." App. Br. 19-20. Appellant also argues transferring an account between systems is not the same as a medium ID that uniquely identifies a storage medium device that is connectable to a connector attachment of an information processing device as recited in the claim. App. Br. 19. We disagree. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Liu teaches: [A Jn attachment connector configured to allow a storage medium device to be attached (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2), the storage medium device including a memory device configured to store an application and a medium ID. In Fig. 1 and Paragraph 18-19, Liu teaches portable wireless terminal which can be a mobile phone (Fig. 1 element 110) and a server (Fig. 1 element 120). The wireless terminal/mobile phone has a register module (i.e. storage medium device) which is inside the wireless terminal thereby it is obvious that register module is connected/attached with the wireless terminal internally. It is also known in the art that mobile phone has internal storage memory which stores application, user name, password and identification which is functionally equivalent to the register module in Fig. 1 element 110. Examiner would also like to point out that since the mobile 6 Appeal2015-004226 Application 13/415,079 phone has mtemal memory/storage it means there is an attachment connector for the register module inside the mobile phone. Ans. 13. The Examiner also finds, and we agree, Liu teaches: [A Jn attachment connector configured to allow a storage medium device to be attached (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2), the storage medium device including a memory device configured to store an application and a medium ID, the application program including a process for communicating data via the electronic communications network (paragraph 19-22), the medium ID uniquely identifying the storage medium device and transmit the medium ID and the user/ device ID to a remote server device (Paragraph 22). In Fig. 1 and Paragraph 18-19, Liu teaches portable wireless terminal which can be a mobile phone (Fig. 1 element 110) and a server (Fig. 1 element 120). The wireless terminal/mobile phone has a register module (i.e. storage medium device) which is inside the wireless terminal thereby it is obvious that register module is connected/attached with the vvireless terminal internally. It is also l(novvn in the art that mobile phone has internal storage memory which stores application, user name, password and identification which is functionally equivalent to the register module in Fig. 1 element 110. Therefore, register module in the mobile phone is functionally equivalent as a storage medium. Furthermore, in Paragraph 20, Liu teaches the resource receiver module in the server receives account parameters corresponding to the account information (i.e. storage/medium ID, transmitting medium ID to a remote server). In Paragraph 22, Liu also explicitly teaches the user has to register via his phone, the account data including account parameters corresponding to the account information, password, fingerprint and retinal print is transferred to the server (i.e. transmitting medium ID, and user ID to the remote server). Ans. 9-10. 7 Appeal2015-004226 Application 13/415,079 Accordingly, we find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellant's arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive of error. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Independent Claim 20 Appellant contends the Examiner erred rejecting independent claim 20 because the combination of Liu and Hutchinson-Kay fails to teach or suggest the "determining," "increasing," "metering," and "automatically preventing" limitations recited in that claim. App. Br. 20-21; Reply Br. 7-8. Appellant repeatedly asserts that the cited art fails to each of these limitations. App. Br. 20-21. We disagree. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Liu teaches: [D]etermining an application identity of an application execution capability (i.e. game running/executing) added to an information processing device (i.e. mobile phone) (paragraph 21-22). In paragraph 22, Liu teaches having a mobile phone which the user uses to provide identification i.e. account information, user password, fingerprint and retinal print. Once the user has passed the identification step (determining application identity), he can select the game matter and enter corresponding game area (i.e. application execution capability). The user checks the status of the users online and the current integral context of every account, including the score, the reward amount and the total resource assigned (i.e. application execution capability). In Paragraph 22, Liu also teaches increasing a data communication limit that is associated with an account identifier (i.e. if user wins a reward, the server can allocate a system resource to the user such a connection bandwidth), which is linked to the information processing device (i.e. mobile phone), in response to the added application execution capability, the 8 Appeal2015-004226 Application 13/415,079 data communication limit being increased by a variable amount that depends on the determined application identity of the added application execution capability (i.e. upgrades certain functions of the user's mobile phone. The server transfers the allocated resource to the account and sends the allocation result to the mobile phone). In Paragraph 22, Liu teaches rewarding the user. Therefore according to the rewards, the user's resource ratio is subsequently re-allocated (i.e. increasing the data communication limit). Examiner would like to point that increasing connection bandwidth is functionally equivalent as increasing data communication limit. Furthermore, in response the reward resource can include game fighting strength, an object rewards, a counter, and it can be system resource. The server allocates a system resource to the user according to the type of reward such as connection bandwidth, thus upgrades certain functions of the user's mobile phone (i.e. data communication limit being increased). In Paragraph 22, Liu also teaches metering an amount of data that the information processing device communicates (Paragraph 22). In Paragraph 22, Liu teaches the user can visualize on his/her phone the computing process, the server randomly selects the icon and transfer to the mobile phone for display (i.e. meter for display). Furthermore, the displayed icon indicates whether the user has won a reward in the game, if there is a reward, the allocation ratio is calculated, and the dynamic allocation of the resource then is conducted (i.e. metering amount of data that device communicates) according to the resource and parameters inputted by the user (i.e. an amount of data that the information processing device communicates). Examiner would like to point out that the display in the phone indicates that if there is a reward, the allocation ratio is calculated and dynamic allocation of the resource is conducted which is functionally equivalent as metering the amount of data (i.e. allocation ration of the resource and dynamic allocation of the resource). Ans. 14--15. 9 Appeal2015-004226 Application 13/415,079 The Examiner also finds, and we agree, Hutchinson-Kay teaches: [U]sing at least one processor, increasing a data communication limit that is associated with an account identifier, which is linked to the information processing device, in response to the added application execution capability, the data communication limit being increased by a variable amount that depends on the determined application identity of the added application execution capability (Paragraph 68, 72-74); metering an amount of data that the information processing device communicates; and automatically preventing the amount of communicated data from exceeding the data communication limit (Paragraph 79-82). In Paragraph 80, 82, Hutchinson-Kay teaches gaming clearing system GCS receives the player rights data stores the data intermediately and communicates the data to the second gaming system GSB wherein PRID2 is stored in the database associated with the first PRID. GCS further generates a billing record for the transfer of player rights associated the current PRID. The GCS finishes and terminates the synchronization with GSA and GSB comprising a synchronized storage of the player rights in the databases of the gaming system (i.e. preventing the amount of data communicated exceeding the limit). Furthermore, in Paragraph 82, Hutchinson-Kay teaches if the specific game is not available (preventing amount of communicated data), the player is presented with the alternatives to select another game or to generate new player rights evidence or voucher. Ans. 17. Accordingly, we find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellant's arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive of error. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 10 Appeal2015-004226 Application 13/415,079 Remaining Claims 3-j2, j8, j9, and 2j Appellant has not presented separate, substantive arguments with respect to the remaining claims 3-12, 18, 19, and 21. As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated separately."). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 3-12, 18, 19, and 21. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-13, and 15-21. 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). AFFIRMED 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation