Matthew OckoDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 7, 20202019006159 (P.T.A.B. May. 7, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 12/895,731 09/30/2010 Matthew Ocko ZYNGP005 8261 101444 7590 05/07/2020 MPG, LLP and Zynga Inc. 710 Lakeway Drive, Suite 200 Sunnyvale, CA 94085 EXAMINER EVANS, KIMBERLY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3629 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/07/2020 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 ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MATTHEW OCKO ___________ Appeal 2019-006159 Application 12/895,731 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR. and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 is appealing the final rejection of claims 1–11, 13–18, 20 and 22–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 2. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claims 12, 19 and 21 are cancelled. Appeal Brief 29, 32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Zynga Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 4. Appeal 2019-006159 Application 12/895,731 2 Introduction According to Appellant, the invention is directed to “apparatuses, methods, and systems for user online behavior monitoring.” Specification ¶ 5. [T]o process a virtual security clearance request, the OBM [Online Behavior Monitor] may obtain user online gaming pattern data including gaming actions and their associated timestamps, user online social activities and their associated timestamps; sand virtual security clearance evaluation rules. The OBM may generate a social-gaming activity timeline using the gaming actions, social activities and timestamps. By applying the virtual security clearance evaluation rules to the social-gaming activity timeline, the OBM may calculate evaluation scores. The OBM may compare the evaluation scores to the evaluation score thresholds to generate virtual security clearance flags, and may determine whether any virtual security clearance flags were generated based on the comparison. The OBM may, upon determining that no virtual security clearance flags were generated, obtain user online gaming action input and user gaming environment data, and generate updated user gaming environment data using the user online gaming action input. Specification ¶ 8 (Emphasis added). [A] customer service request evaluator 205 may monitor the social activity of various users of a social networking application 103a and/or an online gaming application 103b to determine if a user’s 201a customer service request 202e is legitimate and/or if the user 201a can be trusted 204a. Specification ¶ 39. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (bracketed step lettering added): Appeal 2019-006159 Application 12/895,731 3 Representative Claim2 1. A processor-implemented customer service request evaluation method, comprising: [a] obtaining a customer service request from a user that currently plays an online game over a gaming social network, wherein the user is authorized to play the online game, wherein the customer service request comprises a gaming input for the online game provided by the user when playing the online game; [b] obtaining, for processing the customer service request, at least: user social data including graph data identifying co-users that currently play the online game, social networking actions of the user and the co-users performed in a social network separate from the gaming social network and associated social networking action timestamps, the social networking actions performed separate from the gaming social network, wherein the social networking actions and social networking action timestamps are obtained from a social network server accessed through an application program interface (API), wherein the gaming social network operates separate from the social network; online game actions of the user and the co-users and associated game action timestamps, wherein the online game actions and the game action timestamps are obtained from a gaming database associated with the gaming social network; and customer service request evaluation rules and associated customer request evaluation score thresholds that relate to predefined suspicious online social behavior by the user, wherein the rules and thresholds are obtained from an evaluation rules database; 2 For the § 101 rejection, Appellant argues claims 1–11, 13–18, 20 and 22– 24 as a group, focusing on subject matter common to independent claims 1, 8 and 15. See Appeal Brief 4–10. We select independent claim 1 as representative of Appellant’s arguments for the § 101 rejection of claims 1– 11, 13–18, 20 and 22–24. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2019-006159 Application 12/895,731 4 [c] generating, in response to the customer service request, social- gaming activity timelines for each of the user and the co-users using the online game actions of the user and the co-users and the associated game action timestamps, as well as the social networking actions of the user and the co-users and the associated social networking action timestamps; [d] generating a social-gaming activity thread for the user using the social-gaming activity timelines for the user and the co-users, the co-users being at whom the activities of the user were directed, the social-gaming activity thread including social and gaming behaviors of the user, and social and gaming behaviors between the user and the co-users, wherein the social- gaming activity thread correlates one or more social networking actions of the user and co-users with one or more online game actions of the user and the co-users based on related game action timestamps and social networking action timestamps in the social-gaming activity timelines for the user and the co-users; [e] calculating customer service request evaluation rule scores by applying the customer service request evaluation rules to the generated social-gaming activity thread for the user; [f] detecting fraud by the user by comparing each customer service request evaluation rule score to its associated customer request evaluation score threshold to generate rule violation flags; and [g] processing the customer service request when rule violation flags were not generated. Appeal 2019-006159 Application 12/895,731 5 References Name3 Reference Date Thatcher US 6,954,860 B1 October 11, 2005 Cottrell US 2009/0208181 A1 August 20, 2009 Lester US 2009/0265198 A1 October 22, 2009 Scipioni US 2010/0010823 A1 January 14, 2010 Allen US 2012/0202587 A1 August 9, 2012 Rejections on Appeal Claims 1–11, 13–18, 20 and 22–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to patent–ineligible subject matter. Final Action 9–14. Claims 1–3, 5, 8–10, 15–17 and 22–24 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen, Cottrell and Lester. Final Action 14–27. Claims 4, 11 and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen, Cottrell, Lester and Thatcher. Final Action 28–29. Claims 6, 7, 13, 14 and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen, Cottrell, Lester and Scipioni. Final Action 29–31. 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2019-006159 Application 12/895,731 6 PRINCIPLES OF LAW A. Section 101 An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Alice at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”). Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India Appeal 2019-006159 Application 12/895,731 7 rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citation omitted) (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”). If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second part of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. Appeal 2019-006159 Application 12/895,731 8 B. USPTO Section 101 Guidance In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 Revised Guidance”). “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51; see also October 2019 Update4 at 1. Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, we first look to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).5 2019 Revised Guidance at 52–55. 4 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance. USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October 2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.p df). 5 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance at 54–55. Appeal 2019-006159 Application 12/895,731 9 Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under Step 2B, to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance at 52–56. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 7, 2019), the Reply Brief (filed August 13, 2019), the Final Action (mailed August 23, 2018) and the Answer (mailed June 13, 2019), for the respective details. 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejection The Examiner determines the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Final Action 9 (“Claims 1–11, 13–18, 20, and 22–24 are directed to the abstract idea for processing a customer service request and monitoring online gaming behavior.”); see Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (describing the two–step framework “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts”). Appeal 2019-006159 Application 12/895,731 10 We are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. Unless otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own. We add the following primarily for emphasis and clarification with respect to the Revised Guidance. Step 2A–Prongs 1 and 2 identified in the 2019 Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong One The Examiner determines, in the Answer, after the publishing of the 2019 Revised Guidance, “The steps of obtaining, generating, calculating, detecting and processing are not meaningfully different than the patent ineligible concepts found in the [2019 Revised Guidance at 52] and the organizing human activity group of abstract ideas in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(II). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.” Answer 9. Appellant contends: [T]he claims are not directed to “certain methods of organizing human interactions, such as fundamental economic practices [implementing] commercial and legal interactions; managing relationships or interactions between people; and advertising, marketing, and sales activities,” as provided in the 101 Guidelines. In particular, the claims are directed to managing an online game by processing a customer service request using information gathered both gaming activity and social network activity. However, the claimed embodiments are not directed to managing relationships or interactions between people, but managing the online game by determining whether to process the customer service request. Because the claims do not recite one of the enumerated and categorized judicial exceptions, “then the 101 analysis is essentially concluded and the [claims are] eligible,” as provided in the guidance. No additional analysis under Section 101 is necessary. Appeal Brief 13. Appeal 2019-006159 Application 12/895,731 11 The Specification discloses: The OBM may calculate customer service request evaluation rule scores by applying the customer service request evaluation rules to the social-gaming activity thread, and compare each customer service request evaluation rule score to its associated request evaluation score threshold to generate request evaluation flags. The OBM may determine whether to process the customer service request based on whether any request evaluation flags were generated. Specification ¶ 9 (Emphasis added). Claim 1 recites a customer service request evaluation method “wherein the customer service request comprises a gaming input for the online game provided by the user when playing the online game.” Claim 1 recites obtaining a user’s social data identifying co-users that currently play the online game, as well as, other data that identifies actions related to social networking and timestamps in limitations [a] and [b] for processing the customer service request. Claim 1 further recites generating timelines for users and generating a social-gaming activity thread that includes the social and gaming behaviors of the users in limitations [c] and [d]. Claim 1 recites applying customer service request rules to calculate the customer service request score to be used in detecting user’s fraud before processing the customer service request in limitations [e]-[g]. These steps are tantamount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities and following rules or instructions); thus, the claim recites the abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” See 2019 Revised Guidance, Section I (Groupings of Abstract Ideas); see also Answer 9. Our reviewing court has Appeal 2019-006159 Application 12/895,731 12 found claims to be directed to abstract ideas when they recited similar subject matter. See Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344–45 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding that “[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea,” observing that the district court “pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention.”); Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding the concept of “voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation,” a “fundamental activity” that humans have performed for hundreds of years, to be an abstract idea); In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that “[a]pplicants’ claims, directed to rules for conducting a wagering game” are abstract). Therefore, we conclude the claims recite an abstract idea pursuant to Step 2A, Prong One of the 2019 Revised Guidance. See 2019 Revised Guidance, Section III(A)(1) (Prong One: Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception)). Step 2A, Prong Two Under Prong Two of the 2019 Revised Guidance, we must determine “whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.” 2019 Revised Guidance, Section III(A)(2). It is noted that a “claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial Appeal 2019-006159 Application 12/895,731 13 exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” 2019 Revised Guidance, Section III(A)(2). Appellant argues: [T]he claimed embodiments provide a specific improvement to the computer-related technological process of detecting fraud in online gaming by encompassing a wider range of detectable fraudulent activity (e.g., fraudulent activity occurring between a user and co-users playing an online game, wherein the activity occurs in a social network that is separate from the gaming social network) when collecting and analyzing social networking actions and online gaming actions of the user and co-users. That is, the claimed embodiments include an additional element that may have integrated the exception into a practical application. Reply Brief 4. We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive because Appellant does not indicate additional elements that integrates the “recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.” See 2019 Revised Guidance, Section III(A)(2)(“If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an inventive concept).” In McRO6, the Federal Circuit concluded that the claim, when considered as a whole, was directed to a “technological improvement over the existing, manual 3–D animation techniques” through the “use[] [of] 6 McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal 2019-006159 Application 12/895,731 14 limited rules . . . specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316. Specifically, the Federal Circuit found that the claimed rules allow computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters that previously could only be produced by human animators; and the rules are limiting because they define morph weight sets as a function of phoneme sub–sequences. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313 (internal citations omitted). We find no evidence of record here that the present situation is like the one in McRO where computers were previously unable to make certain subjective determinations, i.e., regarding morph weight and phoneme timings, which could only be made prior to the claimed invention by human animators. See Reply Brief 4; Specification 39, Figure 2. The Background section of the McRO ‘576 patent includes a description of the admitted prior art method and the shortcomings associated with that prior method. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1303–06. There is no comparable discussion in Appellant’s Specification or elsewhere of record. Put another way, we do not agree that the purported improvements to the fraud detection process are improvements to technology as a whole. The improvements, at best, are improvements to the abstract idea. Although step [f] recites comparing a rule score to a score threshold, we do not determine this to be like McRO where computers where previously unable to perform fraud detection. Additionally, we detect no additional element (or combination of elements) recited in Appellant’s representative claim 1 that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance, Section III(A)(2). For example, Appellant’s claimed additional elements Appeal 2019-006159 Application 12/895,731 15 (e.g., processor, network) do not: (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology; (2) are not applied with any particular machine (except for a generic computer device); (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state; and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). Appellant argues: [T]he Examiner’s Answer in the last paragraph addressing Step 2A, Prong Two provided that “simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.” (Emphasis Added) (See page 16 of Examiner’s Answer). It appears that the analysis in the Examiner’s Answer is mistakenly applying Step 2B under Step 2A, Prong Two. Reply Brief 5; see Answer 9–17 (“Step 2A-Prong 2”). We do not find the Examiner’s inclusion of “nothing in the claim adds significantly more” to be detrimental to the Examiner’s determination that the claims fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis. See Answer 16. Accordingly, we determine the claim does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance, Section III(A)(2) (Prong Two: If the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether the Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a Practical Application)). Appeal 2019-006159 Application 12/895,731 16 Step 2B identified in the 2019 Revised Guidance Next, we determine whether the claim includes additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, thereby providing an inventive concept. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72–73 (2012)). Appellant argues, “an analysis of ‘well-understood, routine, conventional activity’ to determine if the claims, as a whole adds ‘significantly more’ is improperly applied in Step 2A, Prong Two to reject the claims under Section 101 in the Examiner’s Answer.” Reply Brief 5–6. As we stated above, we did not find the Examiner’s inclusion of the “significantly more” analysis or statement, to be detrimental to the Examiner’s Step 2A, Prong Two analysis. See Answer 16. The Examiner determines the claims fail to provide an inventive concept because the claims fail to add significantly more to the judicial exception in the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis. See Answer 17–22. Appellant does not address the Examiner’s findings or determinations with any specificity other than arguing the Examiner’s significantly more inclusion in the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis was detrimental to both the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, as well as, the Step 2B analysis. See Reply Brief 4–6. Consequently, we do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive because, in determining if the additional element (or combination of additional elements) represents well-understood, routine, or conventional activity, the Examiner supported the determination based upon a factual determination, citing to relevant case law and to the MPEP, that was not challenged by Appellant. See Answer 17–22; see Reply Brief 4–6; see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78) (“we consider the Appeal 2019-006159 Application 12/895,731 17 elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine whether the claim includes “significantly more” than the ineligible concept); see also BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.”). Accordingly, we conclude claims 1–11, 13–18, 20, and 22–24 are directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities and following rules or instructions); thus, the claim recites the abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity” identified in the 2019 Revised Guidance; and thus, an abstract idea with the claims failing to recite limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. We sustain the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of claims 1–11, 13–18, 20, and 22–24. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections Appellant asserts, “Allen et al. reference missing obtaining for processing the customer service request ‘social networking actions of the user and the co-users performed in a social network separate from the gaming social network,’ of independent claims 1, 8[,] and 15.” Appeal Brief 15. Appellant argues, “the ‘social network user accounts [are] connected to the online communal wagering game’ to ‘provide a common infrastructure for social network user accounts from the different social network websites to communicate with each other.’” Appeal Brief 15 (citing Allen ¶ 62). Appellant contends, in regard to Allen: Appeal 2019-006159 Application 12/895,731 18 [T]he social network and the wagering game server do not operate separately as they act in cooperation in furtherance of the communal wagering game, such that the social networking actions of the user and the co-users are not performed in a social network separate from the gaming social network, but are controlled by the wagering game server to facilitate communications in furtherance of conducting the communal wagering game. Appeal Brief 15–16. The Examiner finds, “both Allen and Cottrell teach ‘social networking actions of the user and the co-users performed in a social network separate from the gaming social network,’ and that gaming and networking is obvious and well known, not inventive nor novel.” Answer 25–27 (citing Allen Figure 1, ¶¶ 45, 62, 65; Cottrell Figure 1, ¶¶ 19–21, 29, 48, 49, 54). Appellant contends: Allen et al. teaches a system including a wagering game server and one or more social network servers operating cooperatively to track online game actions performed either through the social network servers to implement a communal wagering game. That is, Allen et al. teaches a common infrastructure that combines the social networks and the wagering game server for tracking only online game actions to implement a communal wagering game. More specifically, Allen et al. does not teach separate tracking of online game actions and social networking actions of the user and co-users to detect fraud, wherein the social network actions are performed separate from the gaming social network, i.e., not acting cooperatively to implement the online game. Reply Brief 8. We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. Claim 1’s disputed limitation – “social networking actions of the user and the co-users performed in a social network separate from the gaming social network” Appeal 2019-006159 Application 12/895,731 19 only requires the user’s actions to be performed in a social network separate from the gaming social network. Allen discloses the social network is separate from the wagering game server (gaming social network). See Allen, Figure 1. Allen discloses: [T]he wagering game server further comprises: a social communications controller configured to control social communications between the one or more social network accounts hosted by the social network server in connection with the online communal wagering game, and a social economy controller configured to control transactions for exchangeable wagering items the one or more social network accounts. Allen ¶ 21 (Emphasis added). [T]he system 100 can receive social communication data directed between social network user accounts connected to the online communal wagering game. Allen ¶ 62 (Emphasis added). Although Allen’s social network user accounts are associated with the online communal game, they are still separate from the online communal game. See Allen Figure 1. Further, the disputed claim 1 limitation does not preclude the user’s social networking actions from being associated with the online communal game, only that the actions be “performed in a social network separate from the gaming social network.” Appellant argues: Allen et al. cannot teach a social-gaming activity thread for the user of the claimed invention that is built on “social networking actions performed separate from the gaming social network” and “wherein the gaming social network operates separate from the social network,” because the social communications of Allen Appeal 2019-006159 Application 12/895,731 20 et al. are performed for purposes of conducting the communal wagering game as controlled through the wagering game server (e.g.,, social communications controller). Appeal Brief 16 (citing Allen ¶¶ 45, 62). We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive because the claim limitation, “social networking actions performed separate from the gaming social network,” does not preclude Allen’s social communications (actions) from being about the communal wagering game. The limitation requires the social networking actions to be performed separate from the gaming social network. See Allen, Figure 1, ¶¶ 21, 62. Appellant argues, “Cottrell teaches only a gaming social network to include the actions of players and their social connections made while the players are playing the multi-player game in a multi-player gaming session” and, therefore, “Cottrell also only teaches tracking of online game actions as there is only a gaming social network.” Reply Brief 10–11. Appellant further argues that, “[i]n addition, Cottrell does not teach multiple social- gaming activity timelines for each of the user and the co-users.” Reply Brief 11. The Examiner finds, “Cottrell further teaches social networking actions performed separate from the gaming social network.” Answer 30–31 (citing Cottrell Figure 1, ¶¶ 19, 21, 22, 48, 49, 54). Cottrell discloses: FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram showing a game play timeline and resulting video content according to an embodiment of the invention. In FIG. 5, players 1, 2, and n are shown spawning, killing and being killed, and capturing a flag. The events occur along a timeline. The event information is used to generate video segments that are then combined to produce a highlight video of the game. Appeal 2019-006159 Application 12/895,731 21 Cottrell ¶ 48. The disputed claim 1 limitation requires, “generating, in response to the customer service request, social-gaming activity timelines for each of the user and the co-users using the online game actions of the user and the co- users and the associated game action timestamps, as well as the social networking actions of the user and the co-users and the associated social networking action timestamps.” (Emphasis added). We find Appellant’s arguments not persuasive of Examiner error because Cottrell discloses a timeline in association with social gaming activities. See Cottrell Figure 5, ¶ 48. The limitation does not require a timeline for the social networking action only timestamps. Cottrell discloses that “two or more players access a game server 11 via a network 14, such as the Internet” and the “game server includes a data store 12 that stores information about each player, such as a profile, game statistics, and the like, as well as a game history comprising, in one embodiment, a timeline that contains events that occurred during a game session.” Cottrell ¶ 21. Cottrell further discloses, “[a]s game play progresses (270), various events occur, such as crashes, kills, deaths, and the like (210). As these events occur, they are noted in a history of the game that is stored, as described above, along a game timeline (220).” Cottrell ¶ 22. Further, we discern no meaningful distinction between the claimed social networking action timestamps and Cottrell’s historic notation of events on the game timeline. Appellant contends, “there is no motivation to combine the online communal wagering game that aggregates one or more social network accounts into the wagering game, the generating and sharing of a highlight Appeal 2019-006159 Application 12/895,731 22 video of events performed in a video game, and the reputation evaluation of an individual of Lester et al.” Reply Brief 13. Appellant further argues: [T]here cannot be any rational connection for combining Cottrell with Allen et al., as Cottrell is directed to actions performed after the game has completed (i.e., generating a sharing a highlight video of events in the game) and Allen et al. is directed to actions performed during an online communal wagering game. Appellant fails to see the rational connection for combining Cottrell with Lester et al., as Cottrell is directed to automated creation of videos by a game for interactive entertainment and Lester et al. is directed to the reputation evaluation of an individual. Reply Brief 13. We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive of Examiner error. The Examiner supported both the motivations to combine the teachings of Allen and Cottrell, as well as, the teachings of Allen, Cottrell, and Lester with articulated reasoning and rational unpinning to support the Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR Int’l. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988); see also Final Action 22, 24–25. Further, Appellant’s dissection of the references by arguing the temporal aspects of the references is not persuasive. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)(“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1, as well as, independent claims 8 and 15, not argued separately. Appeal 2019-006159 Application 12/895,731 23 We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2–7, 9–11, 13, 14, 16–18, 20 and 22–24, not argued separately. CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–11, 13– 18, 20, 22– 24 101 Eligibility 1–11, 13– 18, 20, 22– 24 1–3, 5, 8– 10, 15–17, 22–24 103 Allen, Cottrell, Lester 1–3, 5, 8– 10, 15–17, 22–24 4, 11, 18 103 Allen, Cottrell, Lester, Thatcher 4, 11, 18 6, 7, 13, 14, 20 103 Allen, Cottrell, Lester, Scipioni 6, 7, 13, 14, 20 Overall Outcome 1–11, 13– 18, 20, 22– 24 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation