Ex Parte Blaho

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

13176044 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2017)

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.
13/176,044 07/05/2011 BRUCE BLAHO 82786233 3858
22879
HP Tnr
7590 10/02/2017 EXAMINER
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
DAGOSTINO, PAUL ANTHONY
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2017 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
y vonne.bailey @ hp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRUCE BLAHO
Appeal 2016-007954
Application 13/176,044
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI,
and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—17 and 19—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-007954
Application 13/176,044
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claims are directed generally to “[r]emote [gjaming and
[projection.” Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
accessing, by a first device, features of a gaming system
that executes on a second device, wherein accessing the features
of the gaming system is performed over a network using Internet
Protocol communication;
receiving, by the first device over the network using
Internet Protocol communication, first images in a gaming
session of the gaming system, wherein the first images are
generated at the second device for display at the second device,
wherein the first images are captured based on monitoring a
video port of the second device, and wherein the first images
include images containing content modified by interaction
between the second device and a third device in the gaming
session over the network using Internet Protocol communication,
the interaction caused by selections made by a user at the third
device with respect to images of the gaming session projected on
a second display device interfaced to the third device; and
projecting the first images for the gaming session on a first
display device interfaced to the first device, wherein the first
images are also to be projected for the gaming session on the
second display device interfaced to the third device.
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
nonstatutory subject matter. Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal 2016-007954
Application 13/176,044
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects all claims as unpatentable because they “are
directed to organizing human activity wherein a gaming session is conducted
to execute a game accessed by a first (host) device and projecting to a
second (client device).” Final Act. 2. The Examiner further explains that
“[t]he claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception” for patentability.
Id. The Examiner likens the claims to those held unpatentable by our
reviewing court as “directed to the abstract idea of ‘solving a] tampering
problem and also minimiz[ing] other security risks’ during bingo ticket
purchases.” See Ans. 3 (citing Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS, LLC, 576 Fed.
App. 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
As Appellant points out, however, the activity in Planet Bingo
involved “retrieving numbers and then processing the numbers,” and thus
was “effectively a mathematical calculation.” App. Br. 9. We agree that
“[cjlaim 1 defines specific interactions among multiple devices, including a
first device, a gaming system, a second device, and a third device.” Id. at
10. This is more than “merely retriev[ing] numbers and then perform[ing]
processing of the retrieved numbers.” Id.
We also do not see how a network of gaming devices recited to use
specific steps involving rendering and displaying images over the network to
various users/gamers can be considered management of human activity as in
the cases applied by the Examiner. See, e.g., Final Act. 6 (citing
Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012);
Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266,
1269 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Planet Bingo, 576 Fed. App. at 1006). Here, there is
3
Appeal 2016-007954
Application 13/176,044
no human activity other than the players playing a game, which is unaffected
by the claimed method. The system and method claimed herein deals with
processing and displaying images in a specific manner among the three
devices over a network. As recognized by the Examiner, the claims are
directed to “execut[ing] a game on one device which is remotely viewed on
another” (Ans. 2), not merely managing relationships or transactions
between people as in Dealertrack (processing loan information), Bancorp
(managing an insurance policy), or Planet Bingo (managing a game of bingo
while allowing a player to repeatedly play the same sets of numbers in
multiple sessions). Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the claims at
issue “are not directed to an abstract idea” in a manner similar to any of the
cases cited by the Examiner. Id.
We note that, as Appellant points out, the present application is a
continuation of a prior application and in the prior application “[tjhere were
six rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103.. .and Applicant amended the
claims five times.” Reply Br. 4. “The claims were amended twice more
during the pendency of the instant application to overcome rejections under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103.” Id. at 4—5. We agree that “[t]he Examiner’s
assertion that the claim elements are routine or conventional is belied by his
inability to formulate a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 any longer
despite having already cited eight references relevant to remote gaming and
having mentioned a number of commercial gaming systems in his rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” Id. at 5. In essence the Examiner has cited
patentable subject matter against the claims at issue and once Appellant
demonstrated some patentability over that subject matter, the Examiner now
4
Appeal 2016-007954
Application 13/176,044
contends that the subject matter relates to unpatentable subject matter. We
find such a contention incongruous with the prosecution history of this case.
We are persuaded that the claims are more than simply an abstract
idea as found by the Examiner. As such, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of the pending claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1—17 and 19—21.
REVERSED
5