Ex Parte Harris et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 19, 201311449141 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ADAM P. HARRIS and STEVE C. SCHNEIDER ____________________ Appeal 2011-008428 Application 11/449,141 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, BRETT C. MARTIN, and MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges. KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-008428 Application 11/449,141 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-17, 20, 22, 26, and 27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The Invention Appellants’ claimed invention “relates, generally, to network gaming and more particularly to various metrics that may be implemented in the context of various systems and methods for validating game users and devices in a networked community of game players.” Spec., para. [02]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for validating devices in a gaming network, the method comprising: receiving game data generated by at least one device in the gaming network, wherein the game data is received as a part of a passive data exchange, the at least one device configured for play of a network game, wherein the passive data exchange occurs as a part of the network game play and does not require the at least one device to execute instructions apart from network game play; executing instructions stored in memory, wherein execution of the instructions by a processor: identifies at least one game metric from a library of game metrics, the identified game metric associated with the network game, identifies at least one aspect of the received game data that does not correspond to the at least one game metric identified from the library of game metrics, and generates a query to the device that generated the game data, the query regarding the identified aspect of the received game data that does not correspond to the at least one game metric; Appeal 2011-008428 Application 11/449,141 3 sending the query to the device that generated the game data; receiving a response to the at least one query, the response being sent from the queried device; and executing further instructions stored in memory, wherein execution of the further instructions by the processor: identifies that the response received from the queried device indicates that the identified aspect of the game data that does not correspond to the at least one game metric is authorized, and determines that the queried device is valid for continued play of the network game when the game data from the queried device does not correspond to the at least one game metric, the determination based on the response to the at least one query indicating that the at least one identified aspect of the game data that does not correspond to the at least one game metric is authorized. Evidence Relied Upon Chen Pryor US 2004/0093372 A1 US 7,517,282 B1 May 13, 2004 Apr. 14, 2009 Eric Cronin, et al., Cheat-Proofing Dead Reckoned Multiplayer Games (Extended Abstract), In Proc. ADCOG 2003, Jan. 2003, available at http://warriors.eecs.umich.edu/games/papers/adcog03-cheat.pdf (“Cheat- Proofing”). Margaret DeLap, et al., Is Runtime Verification Applicable to Cheat Detection?, SIGCOMM '04 Workshops, Aug. 30-Sep. 3, 2004, available at http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2004/workshop_papers/ net606-delap1.pdf (“DeLap”). Björn Christoph, et al., PunkBuster for Server Administrators – America’s Army Edition, Nov. 11, 2004, Even Balance, Inc., available at http://www.punkbuster.com/publications/aa-ad/index.htm (last visited Sep. 3, 2008) (“Punkbuster”). Appeal 2011-008428 Application 11/449,141 4 The Rejections The following rejections are before us on appeal: I. Claims 1, 2, 4, 8-15, 17, 20, 22, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pryor and Chen. II. Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pryor, Chen, and Punkbuster. III. Claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pryor, Chen, and DeLap. IV. Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pryor, Chen, and Cheat-Proofing. OPINION Appellant’s Specification describes the claimed subject matter as: An exemplary method for validating devices in a gaming network includes receiving game data generated by at least one device in the gaming network, the at least one device configured for play of a network game. At least one game metric from a library of game metrics is identified, the particular metric associated with the received game data. At least one aspect of the received game data is identified that does not correspond to the at least one game metric identified from the library of game metrics. Upon that identification, a one or more queries are sent to the device that generated the game data that does not correspond to the at least one game metric. A response to that query is utilized to determine whether the queried device is valid for continued play of the network game. Spec., para. [010]. Appeal 2011-008428 Application 11/449,141 5 The method of independent claim 1 calls for execution of instructions by a processor that, inter alia, determines that the queried device is valid for continued play of the network game when the game data from the queried device does not correspond to the at least one game metric, the determination based on the response to the at least one query indicating that the at least one identified aspect of the game data that does not correspond to the at least one game metric is authorized. Independent claims 17, 20, 26, and 27 contain a similar limitation. Appellants’ Specification explains that game designers may wish for game players to obtain certain reward codes (an authorized cheat, or authorized cheat code) that allow for game play that is abnormal (game data that does not correspond to at least one game metric). Spec., para. [0129]; see also App. Br. 8 (identifying this as the claimed subject matter). For example, an authorized cheat may be a special reward of five seconds of in- game invisibility. Spec., para. [0129]. Therefore, claim 1 calls for determining that a queried device is valid for continued play based upon a response to the query that such deviation is authorized despite that device having game data that does not correspond to at least one game metric. In other words, claim 1 calls for response to a query that indicates the cheating (deviation from at least one game metric) is authorized so that the device may be validated for continued play.1 The Examiner’s rejection is amenable to two interpretations with regard to the limitation of determining that a queried device is valid for 1 This construction is consistent with Appellants’ contention that, “[t]he independent claims each recite that a queried device can be determined valid for continued [play] despite having game data that does not correspond (and/or continues to not correspond) to game metrics.” App. Br. 22-23. Appeal 2011-008428 Application 11/449,141 6 continued play as claimed. The first interpretation relies upon Chen for such disclosure, and the second appears to rely upon Pryor. First Interpretation The Examiner found that Pryor discloses a method that includes an operator executed query and expected response, but does not disclose an execution of instructions by a processor that determines that a queried device is valid for continued play as claimed. Ans. 5-6, 8. The Examiner found that Chen discloses execution of instructions by a processor that determines that the queried device is valid for continued play as claimed. Ans. 7. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to modify Pryor by substituting Chen’s processor generated query and response for Pryor’s operator executed query and response, “in order to accurately identify cheaters who were identified as suspected cheaters.” Ans. 9. Chen discloses a method of detecting cheating, where cheating is defined as the client utilizing a modified basic input output system (BIOS), modified game software, or a pirated copy of the game. Chen, para. [0006]; see also para. [0064]. Chen’s server computing device detects cheating by issuing a challenge in the form of one or more code segments to a client computing device (e.g., step 324), and comparing the response received to an expected response (e.g., step 330). Chen, paras. [0001], [0003], [0064], [0066]; Fig. 6. If the actual response matches the expected response, the desired service is provided (e.g., step 331). Chen, paras. [0007], [0066]; Fig. 6. If the response does not match the expected response, or no response is returned, the server automatically takes an appropriate predefined action, such as terminating the session. Id. Appeal 2011-008428 Application 11/449,141 7 Chen does not disclose that any clients may be provided service despite the actual response not matching the expected response. That is, Chen does not disclose utilization of a response to a query that indicates that cheating, as defined by Chen, is authorized. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that Chen fails to disclose determining that a queried device is valid for continued play as claimed. See App. Br. 23. Second Interpretation The Examiner found that Pryor discloses identifying suspected cheaters. Ans. 8. The Examiner found that Pryor discloses an operator sending a query, in the form of email or other methods, to those suspected cheaters, with a response expected. Id. Further, in response to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner determined: Pryor therefore recognizes that some individuals may be mis- identified as cheaters. While Pryor fails to explicitly disclose what happens to a non-cheater, a fundamental element of any game is that players who are not cheating are permitted to continue playing. Punishing players who abide by the rules of a game would be unfair and be a disincentive to play a game. If anything, this is an inherent feature of any game. Ans. 26-27. As discussed supra, the Examiner specifically found that Chen discloses determining that a queried device is valid for continued play as claimed and Pryor does not. Further, the Examiner did not propose to modify Chen’s determination that a queried device is valid for continued play in view of these disclosures in Pryor. The only modification proposed by the Examiner was to modify Pryor’s method by replacing Pryor’s Appeal 2011-008428 Application 11/449,141 8 operator query and expected response with Chen’s processor generated query and response. See Ans. 4-9. In light of this, the relevance of these disclosures by Pryor is not readily apparent. Even if these disclosures of Pryor are relevant to the rejection, they are inadequately supported by the reference. Regarding the finding that Pryor may query by methods other than email, Pryor’s use of the term “e.g.” refers to the email response by the player and not the query by the game operator. See Pryor, col. 6, ll. 40-43; Reply Br. 4-5. Regarding the finding that Pryor inherently discloses permitting non-cheaters to continue playing, Pryor discloses that some players that are not cheating (e.g., exceptionally lucky and exceptionally skilled players) may be identified as likely cheaters, and operators of the game may respond to a determination that a player is a likely cheater by banning that player from playing. Pryor, col. 2, ll. 3-7; col. 6, ll. 32-34. Because Pryor’s method may ban players that are not cheating, Pryor cannot be said to inherently disclose that non-cheaters may continue playing. See Reply Br. 10. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the proposed combination does not disclose determining that a queried device is valid for continued play as claimed. Reply Br. 10-11. Consequently, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 17, 20, 26, and 27, and their respective dependent claims 2, 4, 8-15, and 22. The tertiary references added to rejections II, III, and IV do not cure the deficiencies of the combination of Pryor and Chen discussed, supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 5-7, and 16. Appeal 2011-008428 Application 11/449,141 9 DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-17, 20, 22, 26, and 27. REVERSED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation