Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 16, 2021

2020003249 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2021)

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.
14/805,419 07/21/2015 Roderick Colenbrander SONYP221 1039
16051 7590 03/16/2021
PENILLA IP and SONY
1200 PACIFIC AVENUE
SUITE 250
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
EXAMINER
ZHANG, YINGCHUAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2021 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):
mpdocket@mpiplaw.com
scea_patent_docket@Playstation.Sony.com
sonydocket@mpiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RODERICK COLENBRANDER

Appeal 2020-003249
Application 14/805,419
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JUSTIN BUSCH, AMEE A. SHAH, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–14 and 16–18. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sony
Interactive Entertainment America LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003249
Application 14/805,419

2
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A cloud gaming system, comprising,
a game console configured to execute game logic for one
or more games, the game console being installed at a first data
center of the cloud gaming system;
a storage server configured to store the one or more
games, the game console being in network communication with
the storage server, the storage server and the game console
being located in the first data center, the storage server storing
game disks that represent the game logic for each of the one or
more games; and
a save data server, the save data server being in
communication with the game console over an Internet
connection, wherein the save data server is located in a second
data center;
wherein the game console is configured to obtain one or
more of said game disks for executing the game logic of said
one or more games responsive to receiving a request from a
user to access the cloud gaming system via a user account that
causes a gaming session to be initiated;
wherein the save data server is configured to store save
data separately from said game disks of the one or more games,
the save data is usable by the game logic to render a current
state of game play by the user accessing the cloud gaming
system, the current state of game play represents activity
achieved during play and is associated with the user account for
said one or more games,
the game console is configured to automatically trigger
retrieval of save data for specific ones of said one or more
games from the second data center to the first data center for the
user account,
the retrieval of save data from the second data center
causing the save data to be cached at the first data center so that
the save data is accessible for use by the game console at the
first data center, and the automatic trigger of retrieval of the
save data is based on a prediction that the user will select to
Appeal 2020-003249
Application 14/805,419

3
resume play of specific ones of said games at the current state
of game play using said save data that has been cached,
wherein the retrieval and caching of the save data starts
responsive to and upon initiation of the game session and
before the game is selected and loaded for play, and once the
game logic of the game is selected and loaded for play, the
game logic uses the cached save data for the game of the user,
the game console is configured to execute the game logic and
stream video frames to a remote client of the user without
sending game logic or save data to the remote client.
REJECTION
Claims 1–14 and 16–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Harvey et al. (US 2013/0324245 A1, pub. Dec. 5, 2013)
(hereinafter, “Harvey”) and Ahiska et al. (US 2012/0278439 A1, pub.
Nov. 1, 2012) (hereinafter, “Ahiska”).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
ANALYSIS
In regard to the issues presented in this Appeal, independent claim 1
relates to a cloud-based gaming system, in which a “save data server” stores
“save data” — i.e., data “usable by the game logic to render a current state
of game play” that “represents activity achieved during play and is
associated with the user account for said one or more games.” Claim 1
further recites that “the game console is configured to automatically trigger
retrieval of save data,” thereby “causing the save data to be cached at the
first data center so that the save data is accessible for use by the game
console.” More particularly, “the retrieval and caching of the save data
Appeal 2020-003249
Application 14/805,419

4
starts responsive to and upon initiation of the game session and before the
game is selected and loaded for play.” In addition, “the automatic trigger of
retrieval of the save data is based on a prediction that the user will select to
resume play of specific ones of said games at the current state of game play
using said save data that has been cached.”
Thus, the system of claim 1 is configured to avail itself — i.e., for
“retriev[ing]” and “caching” “save data” (which corresponds to a particular
“current state of game play”) — of the narrow temporal window after
“initiation of the game session” and “before the game is selected and loaded
for play.”
The Appellant argues that the Examiner erroneously rejects claim 1,
because the cited combination of prior art references do not teach or suggest
a system configuration that would “retriev[e]” and “cache[ ]” the “save data”
after “initiation of the game session,” but “before the game is selected and
loaded for play.” See Appeal Br. 9–11, Reply Br. 3–6.
The Final Office Action indicates that “Harvey does not disclose”
such subject matter; instead, “the retrieval of the save data from a second
data center automatically upon initiation of the game session is a feature
taught by the second reference Ahiska.” Final Act. 4, 7–8 (citing Ahiska
¶¶ 83, 284). However, the Final Office Action also relies upon Harvey for
teaching the recitation: “the game console is configured to automatically
trigger retrieval of save data for specific ones of said one or more games
from the second data center to the first data center for the user account.” Id.
at 3 (citing Harvey ¶ 176, Fig. 9).
The Answer clarifies the Examiner’s position: “[D]isclosure of
‘retrieval of save data before the application is being executed’ is done by
Appeal 2020-003249
Application 14/805,419

5
Harvey. Ahiska is only relied upon for the teaching of using a prediction
model to predict what game the player is going to play.” Answer 10–11.
Hewing precisely to, and emphasizing, the claim language presently at issue
(“the retrieval and caching of the save data starts responsive to and upon
initiation of the game session and before the game is selected and loaded for
play”), the Answer states: “Examiner respectfully submits that the
underlined features here presented are rejected based on Harvey’s disclosure
. . . . Ahiska is not relied upon for the rejection of these features.” Id. at 10.
The Examiner’s analysis places particular importance on Harvey’s
Figure 9:
FIG. 9 is a flow diagram for playing a game over different
devices in some embodiments. It is a reasonable understanding
to one having ordinary skill in the art that Fig. 9 itself is
sufficient to disclose the automatic trigger of retrieval of the
save data since it is the flow chart of message exchange over
different devices. In particular, step 924, “authenticate second
device”, and step 926, “provide saved game state” in Fig. 9
fully discloses the automatic trigger of retrieval of the save
data.
. . . Harvey et al. does disclose the automatic trigger as
presented by Fig. 9, and the retrieval and caching of the save
data starts responsive to and upon initiation of the game session
and before the game is selected and loaded for play.
Answer 9. The Examiner maps Harvey’s step 926 (labeled “Provide Saved
Game State”) to the claimed “retrieval and caching of the save data” and
maps Harvey’s step 928 (“Generate UI Based on New Game State”) to the
claimed “the game is selected and loaded for play.” Id. at 9–10; Harvey
Fig. 9. Further, according to the Examiner’s mapping, “the flow from step
926 to step 928,” in Harvey’s Figure 9, discloses claim 1’s “the retrieval and
Appeal 2020-003249
Application 14/805,419

6
caching of the save data starts responsive to and upon initiation of the game
session and before the game is selected and loaded for play.” Answer 10.
Yet, Harvey’s Figure 9 is silent as to whether step 926 (“Provide
Saved Game State”) would precede the game being “selected.” Moreover,
Harvey’s text (corresponding to Figure 9) indicates that such “select[ion]” is
undertaken in earlier steps — whereby the claimed “retrieval and caching of
the save data” would occur after “the game is selected,” rather than the
“before,” as recited in claim 1.
“In step 922” (which is labeled “Receive Game Login” in Figure 9),
Harvey states, “the player . . . may access the game” and “[i]n some
embodiments, when the second user device 904 receives a game login from
the player, the player may provide [sic] identify the game to execute as well
as request that the game to continue from a previously saved state.” Harvey
¶ 180 (emphasis added), Fig. 9. Further, “[i]n step 924” (labeled
“Authenticate Second Device” in Figure 9), “[t]he authentication request
may identify the second user device 904 and the game to continue (e.g.,
identify the game generally and/or identify the saved state such as the date
and time when the game was previously saved).” Id. ¶ 181 (emphasis
added), Fig. 9.
As the Appellant points out, “in order for [Harvey’s] second user
device to continue playing the game, the second user device must login and
authenticate to the game so the saved game state can be provided (step
926).” Reply Br. 3. Therefore, contrary to the Examiner’s position (see
Answer 9–10), Harvey’s Figure 9 does not teach or suggest the claim 1
limitation of “the retrieval and caching of the save data starts responsive to
Appeal 2020-003249
Application 14/805,419

7
and upon initiation of the game session and before the game is selected and
loaded for play.”
As noted above, the Examiner explicitly finds Harvey teaches
retrieving and caching the saved game data before selection of the game, and
the Examiner unequivocally explicitly states Ahiska is not relied on for this
teaching. Ans. 10. The Examiner does not rely on modifying Harvey with
Ahiska’s techniques to teach this limitation and, therefore, does not provide
a reason a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made such a
modification or how such a modification would have been made to result in
the recited limitation. Accordingly, on this record, the question of whether
Ahiska’s techniques, in combination with Harvey’s game state retrieval,
would have rendered the claimed subject matter obvious, is not before us.
In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of
independent claim 1. This determination applies equally to independent
claims 10 and 14. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–14
and 16–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–14,
16–18
103 Harvey, Ahiska 1–14,
16–18

REVERSED