Ex Parte Shaw et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2017

11673414 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2017)

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.
11/673,414 02/09/2007 Gordon L. Shaw MIND.001C1 2609
20995 7590 06/27/2017
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
EXAMINER
CARLOS, ALVIN LEABRES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2017 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):
jayna.cartee@knobbe.com
efiling @ knobbe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GORDON L. SHAW, MARK BODNER, and
LINDA M. RODGERS
Appeal 2016-000258
Application 11/673,414
Technology Center 3700
Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-000258
Application 11/673,414
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
2, 4—8, and 10—26. Claims 3 and 9 have been canceled. See Claims Appx.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method and system for teaching
vocabulary. Claims 1, 6, 8, 16, and 25 are independent. App. Br. 19-24
(claims appx.). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method of improving a student’s score on a
language-based test in a subject, the method
comprising:
teaching said subject by having the student
play a spatial-temporal software game
executing on a computing device, the game
being configured to teach the subject using
animated characters, wherein the spatial-
temporal software game includes motion of
spatial objects controllable by student input,
wherein the spatial-temporal software game is
configured to require the student to identify a
temporal sequence of a plurality of student input
actions that manipulate the spatial objects such
that certain ones of the student input actions are
available to the student only after certain other
student input actions have been made by the
student, and wherein the temporal sequence of
actions comprises an input action sequence that
satisfies a game objective corresponding to at
least one concept of the subject;
obtaining a score that assesses the student’s
proficiency in the concepts embodied in the
spatial-temporal game;
2
Appeal 2016-000258
Application 11/673,414
testing the student’s proficiency in said
subject using a language-based test executing
on the computing device which is directed to the
subject taught by the spatial-temporal software,
comparing the spatial-temporal game scores
assessing the student’s proficiency in the
concepts with the student’s score from the
language-based test to determine, via the
computing device, if the test score reflects a
proficiency lower than what is reflected by the
student’s spatial-temporal game scores,
using the comparison of spatial-temporal
game scores to language-based test scores to
provide language and vocabulary instruction to
said student concerning the language and
vocabulary terms used in the language-based
test, and
re-testing the student using a language-
based test executing on the computing device.
Silver
Trif
Sheehan
Jenkins
REFERENCES
US 5,584,699
US 5,870,731
US 6,144,838
US 6,364,666 B1
Dec. 17, 1996
Feb. 9, 1999
Nov. 7, 2000
Apr. 2, 2002
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12—16, 18—20, and 24—26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Trif, Jenkins, and Sheehan. Non-
Final Act. 4.
Claims 2, 11, 17, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Trif, Jenkins, Sheehan, and Silver. Id. at 18.
Claims 6, 7, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Trif, Jenkins, and Silver. Id. at 19-20.
3
Appeal 2016-000258
Application 11/673,414
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4—5, 8, 10, 12—16, 18—20, and 24—26—
Obviousness—Trif, Jenkins, and Sheehan
Of the claims subject to this rejection, claims 1, 8, 16, and 25 are
independent. App. Br. 19—24 (claims appx.). Claim 1 recites a method of
improving a student’s score on a language-based test in a subject,
comprising having the student play a spatial-temporal software game that
includes motion of spatial objects controllable by student input, the game
requiring the student “to identify a temporal sequence of a plurality of
student input actions that manipulate the spatial objects such that certain
ones of the student input actions are available to the student only after
certain other student input actions have been made by the student.” Id. at 19.
Claims 8, 16, and 25 contain similar limitations. Id. at 21, 22, 24. For
simplicity, we address claim 1 only, but our discussion applies equally to
claims 8, 16, and 25.
The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Jenkins teaches the limitation
requiring the student “to identify a temporal sequence of a plurality of
student input actions that manipulate the spatial objects such that certain
ones of the student input actions are available to the student only after
certain other student input actions have been made by the student,” as recited
in claim 1. Ans. 5 (citing Jenkins, 12:2—61, Figs. 17—19). In doing so, the
Examiner interprets the requirement that “input actions are available to the
student only after certain other student input actions have been made by the
student” as “a game rule of unlocking subsequent input actions after certain
other input actions have been perform[ed].” Id. at 23—24. The Examiner
4
Appeal 2016-000258
Application 11/673,414
specifically refers to Jenkin’s “Block Commander installment game” as
corresponding to this limitation. Id. at 24. According to the Examiner,
The operation of Block Commander installment proceed[s] when
the player correctly responds to trials provided in the
installments, s/he is allowed to proceed to the next processing
level, and thus the next story (considering the round in fig. 18
and round in fig. 19, one can proceed from fig. 18 round to fig.
19 round when the player correctly responds to trials provided in
the installments, s/he is allowed to proceed from fig. 18 round to
fig. 19 round, and thus the next story. However, until the subject
performs the correct input responses, s/he will remain at the
current fig. 18 round and current story. And, as mentioned
above, a threshold of 90% correct responses within four
installments of the LCB game is currently required before the
subject is allowed to advance to fig. 19 round.
Id.
Appellants present several arguments in response. First, Appellants
contend that the Examiner applies too broad an interpretation for the
limitation requiring the student to “identify a temporal sequence of a
plurality of student input actions that manipulate the spatial objects such that
certain ones of the student input actions are available to the student only
after certain other student input actions have been made by the student.”
Reply Br. 5—6. Appellants assert that “the plain meaning should be adopted
with reference to Appellant’s specification,” in particular, Appendix A to the
Specification, which describes, inter alia, “Seed Games” and “Repair the
Ozone Layer” game. Id. at 6. According to Appellants, the Examiner errs
by reading the claim limitation “to be any interactive gaming activity that
requires a sequence of input,” and gives no weight to the requirement that
the input actions require manipulation of “spatial objects.” Id. Second,
Appellants contend that the Examiner incorrectly considers what is
5
Appeal 2016-000258
Application 11/673,414
represented in Figures 18 and 19 of Jenkins to be separate “rounds” of game
play, rather than representing user input to a single trial within a round. Id.
at 9. Finally, Appellants contend that Jenkins refers to a progression of
proficiency levels rather than to a temporal sequence of user inputs that
manipulate spatial objects as recited in the claims. Id. at 10.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner has established the
unpatentability of claim 1. Specifically, that the Examiner has not
established how Jenkins’s method satisfies the limitation requiring the
student “to identify a temporal sequence of a plurality of student input
actions that manipulate the spatial objects such that certain ones of the
student input actions are available to the student only after certain other
student input actions have been made by the student.” First, we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner’s discussion of Figures 18 and 19 of Jenkins is
not supported by the record. Contrary to the Examiner’s discussion, Figures
18 and 19 do not represent distinct “rounds,” within a game. Instead, they
represent separate “trials” within the Block Commander installment.
Jenkins, 5:7—12, 12:19-48. Nor do the figures represent consecutive
activities, whether rounds or trials. Specifically, we have not found any
teaching in Jenkins supporting the Examiner’s contention that the trial
represented in Figure 18 must be completed before the trial represented in
Figure 19 is available to the student. The figures are described as
representing responses to different trials in Block Commander, without any
indication that they appear in order or conditional upon each other. Id. at
5:7—12, 12:19-48. Third, there is no requirement that the student “correctly”
respond to a trial in the Block Commander installment before proceeding to
the next trial, as the Examiner contends. Instead, Jenkins teaches that after
6
Appeal 2016-000258
Application 11/673,414
an incorrect response, the game simply indicates the correct response, and
then moves on to the next trial. Id. at 12:31—38. Thus, no specific student
action is required to advance through the trials.
We also agree with Appellants that the Examiner gives no weight to
the requirement that the input actions require the manipulation of spatial
objects. The Examiner does not address how Jenkins satisfies this
requirement. The mere fact that Jenkins requires a certain percentage of
correct responses before advancing to a higher proficiency level does not
mean that the responses involve the manipulation of spatial objects.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 8, 16, and 25, and dependent claims 4—5, 10, 12—15, 18—20, 24,
and 26, as unpatentable over Trif, Jenkins, and Sheehan.
The Remaining Rejections
The Examiner has rejected claims 2, 11, 17, and 21 as unpatentable
over Trif, Jenkins, Sheehan, and Silver; and claims 6, 7, 22, and 23 as
unpatentable over Trif, Jenkins, and Silver. Final Act. 18—23. These
rejections rely on the Examiner’s finding that Jenkins’s method satisfies the
limitation in independent claim 1 requiring the student “to identify a
temporal sequence of a plurality of student input actions that manipulate the
spatial objects such that certain ones of the student input actions are
available to the student only after certain other student input actions have
been made by the student,” and the similar limitation in independent claims
6, 8, and 16. Id. Thus, for the reasons stated above, we do not sustain these
rejections.
7
Appeal 2016-000258
Application 11/673,414
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—8,
and 10-26 is reversed.
REVERSED
8