Ex Parte Mattila

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2013

11093364 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOUKA MATTILA
____________

Appeal 2011-013540
Application 11/093,364
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.

GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-013540
Application 11/093,364

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jouka Mattila (“Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7-30. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 7, 13, 19, and 25 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim
7 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below.
7. An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code,
the at least one memory and the computer program code
configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the
apparatus at least to perform at least the following:
facilitate communications with a plurality of
clients configured to execute a client-side game application and
configured to facilitate communications across at least one
network to play a multiplayer location-aware game;
determine a number of clients participating in the
multiplayer location-aware game;
determine a location of each of the clients
participating in the multiplayer location-aware game; and
determine a size of at least one link point that
corresponds to a subset of a predefined, subdivided geographic
gaming area based on the number of clients and based on the
location of each client.
App. Br. 13, Claims App’x.
References
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Yu US 6,047,186 Apr. 4, 2000
Hendrey US 6,542,750 B2 Apr. 1, 2003
Lee US 2004/0185881 A1 Sep. 23, 2004
Appeal 2011-013540
Application 11/093,364

3
Rejection
Appellant seeks review of the following rejection:1
Claims 7-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lee, Hendrey, and Yu.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM. We designate our affirmance as a NEW GROUND OF
REJECTION pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
OPINION
The Examiner concluded that the combination of Lee, Hendrey, and
Yu would have rendered obvious the subject matter of claims 7-30 to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Ans. 4-23. The Examiner
found that Lee discloses most of the elements of the claims, but does not
disclose “wherein the link point that corresponds to a subset of a predefined,
subdivided geographic gaming area size is based on number of clients.” Id.
at 5-6. The Examiner found that Hendrey discloses a method using mobile
phones in which “the mobile phones are able to identify their geographic
location, form a group, and vary the size of the group based on the number
of users present.” Id. at 6. The Examiner found that Yu “teaches the act of
grouping cells in a cellular network.” Id. The Examiner concluded that it
would have been obvious at the time of invention to have combined the
teachings of Lee with Hendry and Yu “since Lee is modifiable to use the
teaching of Hendrey in varying the size of a zone in order to capture a
desired amount of users within[,] in order to setup the zones within the game

1 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Ans. 4.
Appeal 2011-013540
Application 11/093,364

4
of Lee.” Id. The Examiner also found that Lee discloses that the use of cells
in a mobile network is a common feature in the art and that Yu teaches the
advantage of grouping these cells for a specific purpose “which would allow
the system of Lee to more easily specify a particular gaming arena instead of
using an arbitrary size.” Id. at 6.
Appellant’s primary argument in response to the rejection is that
Hendrey does not disclose determining a size of at least one link point that
corresponds to a subset of a predefined, subdivided geographic gaming area
based on the number of clients. App. Br. 8-10. Appellant asserts that the
size of a group in Hendrey is “the number of users in a group” (id. at 9) and
that Hendrey “does not use the term zone, and is not concerned with
changing the radius or zone or any other geometrical quantities” (id. at 10).
Appellant also contends that “in part because of the Examiner’s
incorrect interpretation of Hendrey, the motivation that the Examiner
provides to combine Yu with Lee and Hendrey is completely irrelevant.”
App. Br. 10. Appellant asserts that “it is not clear how the teachings of Yu
. . . could be related to helping avoiding disappointment among players of a
specific game.” Id.
In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner asserts that
Hendrey teaches “enlarging a geographic zone or area, based around a user,
or shrinking the geographic zone or area depending on the number of users
present using a preset desired number.” Ans. 23 (citing Hendrey, col. 3,
ll. 6-27; col. 6, ll. 49-53; col. 7, ll. 32-37, 50-60). The Examiner further
explains that “Yu was used only to teach that it is commonly known in the
art to subdivide a communication network’s geographic area into individual
subparts.” Id. at 24.
Appeal 2011-013540
Application 11/093,364

5
In his Reply Brief, Appellant contends that none of the Examiner’s
citations to Hendrey “can be reasonably construed to teach, let alone
explicitly disclose, a geographic area or zone. Indeed a distance between
two telecommunications units does not disclose a geographic zone or area.
At best, a distance between two telecommunications units discloses one or
more line segments.” Reply Br. 4. Rather, Appellant asserts that Hendrey
“merely teaches defining a list of potential callees based on the distance
between the callees and a caller. Indeed, Hendrey makes no determination
regarding ‘a size of at least one link point that corresponds to a subset of a
predefined, subdivided geographic gaming area.’” Id. Any “determination”
by Hendrey, according to Appellant, “is at most merely a determination of
distances to callees, which does not teach a geographic zone or area.” Id.
Appellant also points to an example in Hendrey in which the “distance is in
terms of actual travel distance” and thus may result in including a first
callee, because of the shorter, more direct walking distance, while excluding
a second callee even though both are in the same geographic zone or area.
Id.
Hendrey generally discloses a method and system for selectively
connecting mobile users based on physical proximity. See Hendrey, Title.
Hendrey explains the following:
The system includes a processor and memory for storing
computer readable instructions. When the computer readable
instructions are executed by the processor, they cause the
system to perform a set of steps, including the steps of
receiving from an initiating telecommunications unit (TU), a
control message indicating that a group connection is to be
initiated; determining the distance from the initiating TU to
each TU associated with each group member in a group
corresponding to the group connection; and creating a
Appeal 2011-013540
Application 11/093,364

6
telecommunications connection between the initiating TU and
at least one group member TUs within a predetermined distance
of the initiating TU.
Hendrey, col. 2, ll. 49-62.
Hendrey describes different embodiments. In one embodiment, the
number of group member TUs is “every group member TU within the
predetermined distance of the initiating TU.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 7-9. In another
embodiment, “when less than a predetermined number of group member
TUs are within the predetermined distance, the predetermined distance is
iteratively enlarged until the predetermined number of group member TUs
are within the enlarged predetermined distance to the initiating TU.” Id. at
col. 3, ll. 17-22. In a further embodiment, “when there are more than a
pre-determined number of group member TUs within the pre-determined
distance from the initiating TU, the predetermined number of group member
TUs are selected such that the distance spread of all TUs in the connection is
minimized.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 23-28. While Hendry describes different
embodiments employing different “distances,” including “actual travel
distance,” as argued by Appellant (see Reply Br. 4), Hendrey explains that in
step 403, “the normal use of the term distance implies shortest geographic
distance from one point to another.” Id. at col. 7, ll. 32-34.
As reflected above, Hendrey describes using a predetermined distance
from one TU to create a group based on all TUs within that distance. In the
embodiment where distance is the “shortest geographic distance from one
point to another,” the predetermined distance is equivalent to a radius in
which all TUs within the area of a circle formed from that radius constitute a
Appeal 2011-013540
Application 11/093,364

7
group.2 In other words, while Hendrey does not explicitly use the term
“zone” or “area,” Hendrey describes an embodiment in which groups are
defined in terms of a distance (i.e., radius) from a point. One of ordinary
skill in the art would understand that including TUs within a certain radius
from a point is essentially the same as including users within a predefined
area around that point. This is so because the area of a circle is dependent
upon only one unknown variable, its radius, as reflected in the following
equation: Area of circle = πr2; where the area equals pi multiplied by the
radius squared.3 Thus, by disclosing that a group is created based on TUs
within a predetermined distance from an initiating TU, Hendrey suggests a
group consisting of the TUs within an area of a circle surrounding the
initiating TU and having a radius of the predetermined distance.
Appellant’s Specification explains that the game developer will
typically “predefine the shape of each link point as a square, although other
shapes, such as hexagons, may be used.” Spec., para. [0007]. A circle is an
“other shape” and is thus encompassed within the permissible predefined
shape of a link point.
While Hendrey’s apparatus is not expressly described as performing
the step of determining a size of a link point corresponding to a predefined
subdivided geographic area, size or area is effectively determined, or at the

2 While Appellant now contends that Hendrey is not concerned with
changing a radius (see App. Br. 10), Appellant previously asserted that
“Hendrey recites dynamically changing a distance (i.e., radius) to minimize
a spread of callees.” Amend. (dated Mar. 10, 2010) at 11 (emphasis added).
3 Pi (π) is a known value equal to the ratio of the circumference of a circle to
its diameter. See Macmillian Encyclopedia (2003), accessed at
http://www.credoreference.com/entry/move/pi (last visited: Nov. 18, 2013).
Its value, rounded to the nearest hundredth, is 3.14. See id.
Appeal 2011-013540
Application 11/093,364

8
very least suggested, by Hendrey’s determination of distance or radius since,
as discussed above, the size or area of a circle surrounding the initiating TU
is entirely dependent upon the distance or radius determined.
Further, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contentions directed
toward Yu for the reasons explained by the Examiner in response to
Appellant’s arguments.4 See Ans. 24-25.
We designate our affirmance of the rejection, however, as a NEW
GROUND OF REJECTION so as to provide Appellant with a full and fair
opportunity to respond to the thrust of the rejection because the reasoning
upon which we rely to sustain the rejection of claims 7-30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) differs somewhat from the reasoning articulated by the Examiner.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7-30 and
designate our affirmance as a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION.
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that “[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:

4 We also note that Lee discloses that it was known to subdivide a
communication network’s geographic area into individual subparts, and as
such, the Examiner’s reliance upon Yu is merely cumulative of what is
disclosed by Lee. See Lee, para. [0008] (“The wireless telecommunications
network includes a number of base stations providing wireless
communication coverage for corresponding geographically defined cells.”).
Appeal 2011-013540
Application 11/093,364

9
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
Examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to
the Examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .

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; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

hh