Ex Parte Neogi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 13, 2012

10892940 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 13, 2012)

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.
10/892,940 07/15/2004 Raja Neogi ITL.1790US (P19894) 4096
21906 7590 01/13/2012
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750
HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631
EXAMINER
HALL, ARTHUR O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3718
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/13/2012 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 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
___________ 6
7
Ex parte RAJA NEOGI 8
___________ 9
10
Appeal 2010-006065 11
Application 10/892,940 12
Technology Center 3700 13
___________ 14
15
16
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and 17
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges. 18
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 19
DECISION ON APPEAL 20
21
22
Appeal 2010-006065
Application 10/892,940
2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1
Raja Neogi (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of a 2
final rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-17, and 19-33, the only claims pending 3
in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant 4
to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). 5
The Appellant invented a way of dynamically inserting personalized 6
content in online gaming scenes (Specification ¶ 0048). 7
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 8
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 9
paragraphing added]. 10
1. A method comprising: 11
[1] collecting game data during the course of an electronic 12
game from a media center using snooping logic; 13
[2] providing the game data to a game server over a network; 14
[3] providing dynamic content for a plurality of users over the 15
network, from said game server to said media center, said 16
dynamic content based on said game data; 17
[4] replacing, in said media center, static content with the 18
dynamic content; 19
and 20
[5] displaying the dynamic content using said media center. 21
22

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed August 6, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed February 25,
2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed January 11, 2010).
3

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 1
Johnson US 2002/0082077 A1 Jun. 27, 2002
Letovsky US 2002/0147047 A1 Oct. 10, 2002
Claims 1, 5-8, 11-16, 19-21, 23-26, and 28-33 stand rejected under 35 2
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Johnson. 3
Claims 3, 10, 17, 22, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 4
unpatentable over Johnson and Letovsky. 5
ISSUES 6
The issue of anticipation turns primarily on the breadth of the claim 5 7
and 25 limitations. 8
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 9
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 10
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 11
Facts Related to Claim Construction 12
01. The disclosure contains no lexicographic definition of “snooping 13
logic.” 14
Facts Related to Appellant’s Disclosure 15
02. Snooping logic may be provided by hardware, software, firmware 16
or any combination thereof capable of permitting a game engine to 17
extract game control parameters from storage. Specification ¶ 18
0025. 19
20
4

Facts Related to the Prior Art 1
Johnson 2
03. Johnson is directed to a network-based video game system based 3
on characters having physical, emotional, and cognitive traits and 4
digitally represented genetic characteristics. Johnson ¶ 0002. 5
04. Johnson’s animation script file includes frame-by-frame stream of 6
motion control points used to render the background, dynamic 7
objects, and digenome characters that are the subject of the 8
currently displayed environment. Johnson ¶ 0105. A digenome is 9
a game character. Johnson ¶ 0006. 10
05. Johnson’s animation script data may include (or be associated 11
with) timing information related to the synchronization, starting, 12
and stopping of the corresponding animation graphics rendered at 13
the presentation devices. For example, the animation script data 14
may include timing markers (or data packets that include time 15
stamps) that indicate when the graphics are to be rendered. The 16
timing markers and time stamps can be used to control the local 17
playback of the animation graphics. Johnson ¶ 0107. 18
06. Johnson’s perpetual universe server manages the triggering of 19
events and the passing of data between various components of the 20
video game system. This perpetual universe server may include or 21
communicate with a scheduler that regulates the processing and 22
timing of competitions and training sessions to regulate: the 23
transfer of digenome data, digenetic data, and/or game data to a 24
Solomon engine or simulation engine; the processing of results 25
5

files and animation script files; and when animation script files or 1
results files are transmitted to (or rendered by) the presentation 2
devices. Johnson ¶ 0045. 3
07. If an end user is unhappy with the performance of his or her 4
digenome, it may be possible to mutate, upgrade, or otherwise 5
modify the digenetic pattern, traits, and/or characteristics that 6
define the digenome. The perpetual universe server may generate 7
any suitable digenetic therapy option or menu for the end users 8
and can be designed with any number of features to enable the end 9
user to research the character's digenetic code and attempt to 10
modify one or more traits by altering the code. Johnson ¶ 0080. 11
ANALYSIS 12
Arguments are directed solely to claims 5-7, 12, 19, 23, 25, and 32-33. 13
Thus arguments as to claims 1, 8, 11, 13-16, 20, 21, 24, 26, and 28-31 are 14
waived, and the rejection as to these claims is summarily affirmed. Of 15
claims 5-7, 12, 19, 23, 25, and 32-33, arguments are presented for claims 5 16
and 25 alone. The remaining claims are argued based on claim 5. Appeal 17
Br. 3-4; Reply Br. 1-2. 18
Claim 5 recites that providing dynamic content further comprises 19
providing dynamic content in response to game data specifying at least one 20
game user attribute. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that 21
animation is provided or generated based on the dynamic 22
objects and the user's digenomes or game characters that are 23
user-controlled in that the user inputs or enables the character's 24
digenetic code, whereby the user controlled input is interpreted 25
as the game user attribute that is specified for the dynamic 26
content, and hence, when the animation is generated based on 27
6

user input, the static environment is replaced or evolves to 1
animated motion in order that a competition may take place. 2
Ans. 18. FF 04. Claim 5 does not narrow the manner of such 3
responsiveness. 4
Claim 25 recites logic capable of modifying, in response to the at least 5
one time stamp associated with the at least one dynamic media object, at 6
least one time stamp associated with the at least one static media object to 7
generate at least one modified time stamp. 8
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that 9
date and time are interpreted to be a time stamp at which the 10
static game environment or perpetual universe or background is 11
replaced with the animation data for a competition, and the 12
replacement of the static game environment is a modification of 13
the environment since a modification requires a change and 14
once the environment has been replaced, then the environment 15
has changed (paragraphs 0044-0045 and 0112, Johnson). 16
Consequently, Examiner submits that the time stamps or timing 17
markers for animation data indicate when the rendering of the 18
animation data is synchronized, started and stopped for 19
replacement of the static game environment or perpetual 20
universe or background with the animation data. 21
Ans. 19. FF 07. Claim 25 does not narrow the manner of such modification, 22
association or generation, and does not narrow the manner in which a time 23
stamp is expressed or the nature of the time represented. 24
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 25
The rejection of claims 1, 5-8, 11-16, 19-21, 23-26, and 28-33 under 35 26
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Johnson is proper. 27
The rejection of claims 3, 10, 17, 22, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 28
unpatentable over Johnson and Letovsky is proper. 29
7

DECISION 1
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-17, and 19-33 is affirmed. 2
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 3
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 4
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007). 5
6
AFFIRMED 7
8
9
10
mls 11