Ex Parte Smith

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 5, 2013

11207194 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 5, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DARREN C. SMITH
____________

Appeal 2011-004294
Application 11/207,194
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-004294
Application 11/207,194

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Darren C. Smith (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a
final rejection of claims 1-25 and 33-59. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to an “enhanced methodology and
apparatus for selecting and rendering performance data in multi-player video
games such as ‘ghost’ performance data in racing games.” Spec., para.
[0001]. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with key disputed limitations emphasized.
1. A method for simulating multiple user performance
sequences on a first computing device operable to record the
performance sequence of at least a first user comprising the
steps of:
a) connecting said first computing device to at least one
server computer via a communication network;
b) transmitting identification data for authenticating the
first user to at least one server;
c) transmitting other user identification data over said
communication network, where said other user identification
data identifies at least one other user of a second computing
device which has recorded a performance sequence of the other
user;
d) selecting a multiple user performance sequence
package from among a plurality of multiple user performance
sequence packages;
e) building a search query to enable retrieval of a
plurality of other user performance sequence data from the at
least one server sufficient to permit the first user to
subsequently compete against a combination of multiple other
users, the search query built at least in part on the selected
Appeal 2011-004294
Application 11/207,194

3
multiple user performance sequence package; and
f) transmitting said search query to at least one server
over said communication network by said first computing
device requesting the plurality of other user performance
sequence data that matches the search query.

EVIDENCE

The Examiner relies on the following evidence:
Tampieri US 6,366,283 B1 Apr. 2, 2002
Jen US 2004/0224741 A1 Nov. 11, 2004
Takahashi US 6,821,205 B2 Nov. 23, 2004
Gran Turismo 3 Driver’s Manual (2001) (hereinafter “GT3”).

REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of the rejection of claims 1-6, 8-25, and 33-59
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jen, GT3, and Takahashi, and
the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jen,
GT3, Takahashi, and Tampieri. App. Br. 6.
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1-6, 8-25, and 33-59 over Jen, GT3, and Takahashi
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Jen discloses the limitations of independent
claim 1, including: selecting a multiple user performance sequence package
from among a plurality of multiple user performance sequence packages
(Ans. 5 (citing Jen, paras. [0037] and [0040] – [0041])); building a search
query to enable retrieval of a plurality of other user performance sequence
data from the at least one server sufficient to permit the first user to
Appeal 2011-004294
Application 11/207,194

4
subsequently compete against a combination of multiple other users, the
search query built at least in part on the selected multiple user performance
sequence package (Ans. 6 (citing Jen, paras. [0037] and [0054])); and
transmitting the search query to at least one server over the communication
network by the first computing device requesting the plurality of other user
performance sequence data that matches the search query (Ans. 6 (citing Jen,
paras. [0037] and [0040] – [0041])).
The Examiner thus equates the various available leaderboards with the
claimed “performance sequence packages,” and equates the data within the
leaderboards (e.g., ranking, player name, lap times, and attachments, which
include recorded races) with the claimed “performance sequence data.” See,
e.g., Ans. 13-14, 18.
Appellant argues that Jen fails to teach or suggest the ability to select
a multiple user performance sequence package from among a plurality of
multiple user performance sequence packages. App. Br. 16-17. To explain
why Jen does not disclose selection of a multiple user performance sequence
package from among plural packages, Appellant turns to the Specification
and attempts to limit the claimed “performance sequence packages” to an
exemplary embodiment wherein a plurality of ghost data packages are
available for a user to race against. App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 5; see also Spec.,
paras. [0007], [00108]-[00109].
While claims are to be given their broadest reasonable construction in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art (In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004)), a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may
not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the
Appeal 2011-004294
Application 11/207,194

5
embodiment (SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875
(Fed. Cir. 2004)). Because the ghost data embodiment may not be read into
the claim from the written description, and because Appellant has not
otherwise provided a definition for the term “sequence package” that
excludes the data available in Jen’s leaderboard, Appellant has not
persuaded us that the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim term “multiple
user performance sequence package” was erroneous.
Appellant further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that selection of “a multiple user performance sequence
package” from among plural packages would not include individually
selecting performance sequences to individually download. App. Br. 17.
However, the Examiner considers the selected leaderboard to be the selected
multiple user performance sequence package, and it is thus the selection of
this leaderboard information for multiple users, rather than ghost data, that
the Examiner considers to be taught by Jen. Ans. 5.
Appellant next argues that Jen fails to teach or suggest “building a
search query to enable retrieval of a plurality of other user performance
sequence data from [a] server sufficient to permit the first user to
subsequently compete against a combination of multiple other users.” App.
Br. 17-20. Reply Br. 6. Appellant again attempts to impermissibly limit the
term “sequence data” to recorded race data. Id.
We are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s finding that Jen’s
query for a leaderboard permits the user to subsequently compete against
others because it allows selection of data (e.g., recorded race data) from the
leaderboard. While it may be true that a single query in Jen does not, alone,
provide all of the data needed for a user to play against multiple other users
Appeal 2011-004294
Application 11/207,194

6
at the same time, claim 1 is not limited to a single query providing all of the
data needed for a user to play against multiple other users, nor against those
users at the same time.
Appellant next argues that Jen does not disclose the step of
“transmitting said search query to at least one server over said
communication network by said first computing device requesting the
plurality of other user performance sequence data that matches the search
query,” because Jen’s query is directed to a listing identifying a plurality of
performances, whereas the claims recite querying a plurality of performance
sequences. App. Br. 20. Appellant is again arguing that only an actual
recorded race is sequence data, and that Jen does not disclose transmitting a
single query that retrieves multiple instances of recorded race data. As
stated above, we decline to limit the term “sequence data” to include only
ghost data, and claim 1 is not limited to a single query providing all of the
data needed for a user to play against multiple other users at the same time.
Regarding building and transmitting a search query as recited in claim
1, the Examiner finds that Jen’s disclosure of requesting a specific
leaderboard using a game console of an online gaming service, and the
online gaming service providing the game console with leaderboard data that
the game console user can select among to compete against other recorded
sequences is “interpreted as building a search query to enable retrieval of a
plurality of other user performance sequence data” (Ans. 13-14), and is
“interpreted as transmitting said search query” (Ans. 14).
The Examiner further finds that Jen, in combination with Takahashi,
discloses a “search query” as claimed, because Jen discloses requesting
leaderboards and Takahashi discloses a search element used to search for
Appeal 2011-004294
Application 11/207,194

7
specific information among a plurality of data. Ans. 14 (citing Takahashi,
Figs. 26, 28-30 and col. 20, ll. 19-23). Regarding the combination of Jen
and Takahashi, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill to modify the leaderboard request of Jen with the search
feature of Takahashi to retrieve specific desired information and allow users
to quickly and conveniently find the desired information. Appellant argues
that Takahashi’s search query is simply an access status identifier for people
on a user’s friend list. App. Br. 21 (citing Takahashi, col. 20, ll. 19-39; Fig.
26; Fig. 28). We note, however, that the Examiner finds that Jen also
discloses a search query, and that the Examiner only finds that Takahashi
teaches a search element used to search for specific information among a
plurality of data, and combines Takahashi’s query with Jen’s data types.
Accordingly, Appellant is arguing the references in isolation, not the
Examiner’s proposed combination. As such, Appellant has not persuaded us
that Jen, alone or combined with Takahashi, fails to teach the claimed search
query.
For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Appellant does not advance any separate argument regarding claims 2-6 and
8-18. We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 2-6 and 8-18, which we
select to fall with claim 1. The rejection of dependent claim 7 is discussed
below.
Claim 19
Regarding independent claim 19, the Examiner finds that Jen
discloses, among other things, displaying a plurality of other user
performance sequence package options, wherein each of the plurality of
other user performance sequence package options are associated with
Appeal 2011-004294
Application 11/207,194

8
multiple other user performance sequences from which the first user may
select for downloading. Ans. 5-6 (citing Jen, Fig. 3 and para. [0037]). We
note that Jen discloses, in paragraphs [0040] and [0044], multiple
leaderboards being available for selection.
Appellant again attempts to limit the claim term “sequence packages”
to multiple ghost data packages, and “performance sequences” to ghost data,
and attempts to limit “multiple other user performance sequences from
which the user may select for downloading” to transmitting a single query
that retrieves multiple instances of ghost data, arguing that Jen does not
disclose allowing a user to select more than one ghost data file at a time for
downloading. App. Br. 23-24. As stated above, we decline to limit the
term “sequence packages” to ghost data packages, and we decline to limit
the term “sequence data” to ghost data. Because claim 19 fails to recite a
single query retrieving multiple instances of ghost data, we also decline to
limit claim 19 to require that a user be able to select more than one ghost
data file at a time for downloading.
We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 19. Appellant does not
advance any separate argument regarding claims 20-25, which we select to
fall with claim 19. We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 20-25.
Claim 33
Regarding independent claim 33, the Examiner’s findings with respect
to claims 1 and 19 are relevant and include Jen disclosing displaying a
plurality of other user performance sequence package options that the user
can select for downloading, and building and transmitting a search query
enabling retrieval of other user performance sequence data.
Appeal 2011-004294
Application 11/207,194

9
Appellant states that it is unclear how the leaderboard functionality in
Jen displays “‘a plurality of other user performance sequence package
options’” because the items displayed on the leaderboard are simply a
plurality of performances (e.g., race times) and there are no “‘package
options’” on Jen’s leaderboard. App. Br. 26.
The Examiner equates Jen’s request for retrieval of a specific
leaderboard via the game console with the claimed “first computing device
being operable to generate a search query for transmission to a database
based upon selections by said first user from said display, whereby said
search query, upon receipt by said database enables the retrieval of other
user performance sequence data from said database.” Ans. 15-16. Jen’s
user can select from among multiple players’ game performances to
download for game play. Ans. 16. Regarding sequence package options, as
stated above, Jen additionally discloses, in paragraphs [0040] and [0044],
multiple leaderboards (or “package options”) being available for selection.
We decline to limit “performance sequence package options” to ghost
data from multiple races, and therefore sustain the rejection of claim 33.
Appellant does not advance any separate argument regarding claims 35-37,
39, and 41-44. We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 35-37, 39, and
41-44, which we select to fall with claim 33. Dependent claims 34, 38, and
40 are addressed individually below.
Claim 34
Regarding dependent claim 34, the Examiner finds that Jen discloses a
scores and results server for downloading performance sequence data
packages in response to user selections. Ans. 6-7 (citing Jen, paras. [0034] -
[0035]).
Appeal 2011-004294
Application 11/207,194

10
Appellant argues that Jen only teaches using a storage server to
download a single recorded race, which is not the claimed “‘performance
sequence data package.’” App. Br. 29-30. Appellant again attempts to limit
the claim term “sequence data package” to a “‘combination of multiple,
individual Ghost Data performance.’” For the reasons set forth above, we
decline to so limit the term “sequence data package” and we therefore
sustain the rejection of claim 34.
Claim 38
Appellant argues that Jen’s user performance sequence package
options do not include “performance sequence data” of a plurality of the
user’s friends, because Jen’s leaderboard does not include performance
sequences, much less a plurality of them. App. Br. 30. As stated above, we
decline to limit the term “performance sequence” to ghost data, and we
therefore are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument.
Claim 40
Appellant argues that Claim 40 requires that the performance
sequence data retrieved be “similar to” the first user’s performance sequence
data, and that Jen only allows a player to select a saved game associated with
another player having a similar skill level. App. Br. 30-31.
The Examiner found, however, that Jen discloses leaderboards based
on a racing game, such that when a first user is playing the racing game the
leaderboard is related to the racing game and the performance sequence data
(i.e., racing game leaderboard) retrieved is “similar to” the first user’s
performance sequence data (i.e., racing game data). Ans. 18 (citing Jen,
paras. [0041] - [0044]). The Examiner therefore interprets the term “similar
Appeal 2011-004294
Application 11/207,194

11
to” to include data regarding the same type of game. Appellant has not
apprised us of error in the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “similar to,”
and we therefore sustain the rejection of claim 40.
Claim 45
Regarding independent claim 45, the Examiner finds that Jen
discloses: receiving information regarding a combined set of competitors
among a plurality of sets of competitors against whom said first user may
compete (Ans. 5 (citing Jen, para. [0053], discussing competing against
other players and against two or more different recorded games
simultaneously)); and transmitting a search query requesting a plurality of
competitor performance sequence data (Ans. 6).
Appellant argues that Jen discloses neither the receipt of information
regarding a combined set of competitors, nor requesting a plurality of
competitor performance sequence data that match a query, again arguing that
Jen’s leaderboard’s race data is not performance sequence data.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. For the reasons set
forth above, we agree with the Examiner that Jen’s leaderboard includes
“performance sequence data,” giving the term its broadest reasonable
interpretation.
We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 45. Appellant does not
advance any separate argument regarding 49-59. We therefore sustain the
rejection of claims 49-59, which we select to fall with claim 45.
Rejection of Claim 7 over Jen, GT3, Takahashi, and Tampieri
The Examiner finds that Tampieri discloses rendering and storing data
indicative of a performance sequence of at least a first user and computing
Appeal 2011-004294
Application 11/207,194

12
device in a database accessible by a second computing device using objects
having more polygons per object than the objects recorded by said first
computing device. Ans. 9-10 (citing Tampieri, col. 4, ll. 40-50). The
Examiner explains that Tampieri discloses using a radiosity method
including importing a 3D scene from one computing device to another
computing device via processors and a network that meets the claimed
limitation “using objects having more polygons per object than the objects
recorded.” Ans. 18. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the game settings of
Jen with the importation radiosity method of Tampieri to create independent
gaming image data values, resulting in a separate rendering process that is
capable of rendering a view from any position within a game sequence.
Ans. 18-19.
Appellant points out that Tampieri discusses the calculation of light
emissions from polygons but not the utilization of higher polygon count
models. App. Br. 32. Indeed, the Examiner has not cogently explained why
or how Tampieri’s radiosity adds polygons to an object. We are not
persuaded that Tampieri’s radiosity renders a performance sequence using
objects having more polygons per object that the originally recorded object.
We therefore do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 7.
DECISION

We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-6, 8-25, and 33-59 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jen, GT3, and Takahashi.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jen, GT3, Takahashi, and Tampieri.

Appeal 2011-004294
Application 11/207,194

13
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

hh