Ex Parte Aggarwal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 11, 2015

11539976 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2015)

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.
11/539,976 10/10/2006 Sudhir Aggarwal Aggarwal 4-1-22-23
(LCNT/
4632
46363 7590 03/12/2015
WALL & TONG, LLP/
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.
25 James Way
Eatontown, NJ 07724
EXAMINER
NAJEE-ULLAH, TARIQ S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2453
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/12/2015 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 SUDHIR AGGARWAL, HEMANT BANAVAR,
SARIT MUKHERJEE, and SAMPATH RANGARAJAN
____________________

Appeal 2012-012106
Application 11/539,976
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-012106
Application 11/539,976

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1–
8, 10–17, and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

The invention relates to synchronizing assets in a distributed
multiplayer game over a communication network (Spec. 1:10–11; 3:17–30).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method adapted for synchronizing placement of an
asset within application space using a proxy, comprising:

using a processor for:

receiving, at the proxy, asset information of a
sending system, wherein the asset information of the
sending system comprises an original position of the
asset within application space on the sending system and
a trajectory of the asset within application space on the
sending system;

determining, at the proxy, an updated position
adapted for placing the asset within application space on
a receiving system, wherein the updated position is
determined using the original position of the asset within
application space on the sending system, the trajectory of
the asset within application space on the sending system,
and a total expected propagation delay from the sending
system to the receiving system;

updating, at the proxy, the asset information of the
sending system to include the updated position; and

transmitting the updated asset information from the
proxy toward the receiving system, wherein the receiving
system is configured to place the asset within application
Appeal 2012-012106
Application 11/539,976

3
space on the receiving system using the updated asset
information.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal are:

Addink US 6,042,477 Mar. 28, 2000
Levine US 2003/0177187 A1 Sep. 18, 2003

REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1–8, 10–17, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Addink and Levine.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Addink discloses all the limitations of claim
1 except for using a proxy for the steps of “receiving[, at the proxy,] asset
information,” “determining[, at the proxy,] an updated position,” “updating,
at the proxy, the asset information,” and “transmitting the updated asset
information from the proxy toward the receiving system,” but relies on
Levine for these features. (Final Act. 3–4). Appellants contend Levine does
not disclose performing the recited steps “at a proxy.” (App. Br. 13–17).
We agree with Appellants.
Even if we agree with the Examiner that Levine’s gateway is a
“proxy” (Ans. 4–6), the Examiner has not shown that Levine discloses
performing the steps of determining an updated position and updating asset
Appeal 2012-012106
Application 11/539,976

4
information “at the proxy,” as recited in claim 1. For example, in response
to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner cites (Ans. 5) paragraph 248 of
Levine, which provides that “information is ‘marshaled’ from the client to
the server . . . . The context agnostic states are passed through the Gateway
401 and the Game Server 405 to the game itself, without regard to what
exactly these values represent.” The Examiner also cites (Ans. 5) paragraph
552 of Levine, which provides that “[e]ach participant knows their current
object state at any time” and “[i]f at some point their true object state
deviates sufficiently from the perceived object state, they will transmit a[n]
object state update that will in turn be re-transmitted by the Game Servers
405 to the appropriate subscribers.” Based on this disclosure, the Examiner
finds that “Levine teaches updating of state information of game object via a
gateway, i.e. proxy.” (Ans. 5) (citation omitted). However, this finding
does not suffice to meet the limitations of claim 1 because merely passing
state information through a gateway falls short of “determining, at the proxy,
an updated position” and “updating, at the proxy, the asset information,” as
claimed. (Emphasis added).
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 10 and 21 which
recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2–8 and 11–17 for
similar reasons.

Appeal 2012-012106
Application 11/539,976

5
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–8, 10–17, and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–8,
10–17, and 21 is reversed.

REVERSED
rvb