Ex Parte Cho

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 30, 2013

11464895 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte WING CHO
____________________

Appeal 2011-000231
Application 11/464,895
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: ERIC B. CHEN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000231
Application 11/464,895
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1 and 3-17. Claim 2 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to coordinating video game play and other
activities among multiple remote networked friends and rivals by allowing
“friends,” who are personally known to each other, to chat. In contrast,
although game play is permitted with “rivals”, chatting is not allowed.
Abstract. Claims 1 and 6, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method of interacting between first and second game
devices communicating via a network, the method comprising:
introducing a first game device player to a second game
device player;
securely determining whether the second game device
player is personally known to the first game device player
outside of a virtual gaming environment;
conditioning chat capabilities between said first and
second game device players on whether the second game device
player has been securely determined to be personally known to
the first game device player outside of a virtual gaming
environment; and
nevertheless permitting said first game device player to
track and play real time games with said second game device
player whether or not said second game device player is
securely determined to be personally known to the first game
device player outside of a virtual gaming environment.

6. The method of claim 5 wherein the first code corresponds to
a code assigned to the second card owner’s device, and the
Appeal 2011-000231
Application 11/464,895
3
second code corresponds to a code assigned to the first card
owner’s device.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Perlman
Hashimoto
US 5,558,339
US 6,848,997 B1
Sep. 24, 1996
Feb. 1, 2005

REJECTIONS1
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 3, 5-11, and 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Hashimoto. Ans. 4.
Claims 4 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hashimoto and Perlman. 2 Ans. 3.

ISSUES ON APPEAL
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 12-14)
and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1-3), the issues presented on appeal are:
1. Whether Hashimoto discloses,
a. “securely determining whether the second game device
player is personally known to the first game device player

1 Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13 and 15-17 are collectively argued, as are claims 6
and 14. Claims 4 and 12 are not separately argued. In view of the foregoing,
we select claims 1 and 6 as representative of all the claims rejected under 35
U.S.C. §§102(b), 103(a), and our analysis only addresses these claims.
2 The Examiner’s Action includes the rejection of claims 4 and 12 over
Hashimoto in view of Perlman as a new ground of rejection, substituting
Perlman for Official Notice taken in the Final Office Action. Appellant does
not provide separate arguments for patentability of claims 4 or 12 in either
the Appeal Brief or Reply Brief.
Appeal 2011-000231
Application 11/464,895
4
outside of a virtual gaming environment” as required by
claim 1 (App. Br. 12-14 (emphasis added)); and
b. the input of codes by each user for the other user as required
by claim 6. App. Br. 14.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions as to all rejections. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and, (2) except as otherwise indicated below, the reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. For
emphasis we highlight Appellant’s arguments seriatim as they are presented
in the Appeal Brief, pages 12-14.

Claim 1
Appellant contends that “Hashimoto discloses network-connected
gaming in which game devices can exchange personal information with
other players over the network, while the game application is executed on
the game devices” and, thus, Hashimoto’s “exchange takes place within the
virtual gaming environment on the network connection.” App. Br. 12,
emphasis in original. Appellant argues that “Hashimoto makes no mention
of anything that takes place outside the virtual gaming environment.” Id,
emphasis in original.
The Examiner responds that Appellant’s Specification does not define
“a virtual gaming environment” and therefore uses the broadest reasonable
Appeal 2011-000231
Application 11/464,895
5
interpretation of the phrase consistent with the specification. Ans. 7. The
Examiner finds that “the phrase ‘virtual gaming environment’ . . .
describe[s] a software interface that is actively providing a gaming activity.”
Ans. 9. Since the exchange of personal information may occur after a game
has ended,3 Hashimoto discloses a determination of whether players are
personally known to one another outside of game play, i.e., outside of the
virtual gaming environment as claimed. Ans. 9. We agree with the
Examiner.
Appellant fails to provide sufficient evidence that the Examiner’s
interpretation of “outside of a virtual gaming environment” is unreasonably
broad or inconsistent with the specification. As noted by the Examiner,
Appellant’s Specification provides no definition for the phrase (Ans. 7), with
the disputed language of “outside of a virtual gaming environment” having
been added by amendment.4 Therefore, we find that the Examiner’s
interpretation of the disputed phrase is reasonable and not inconsistent with
Appellant’s Specification.
Appellant further argues that, because Hashimoto’s player cards “do
not necessarily include any personal information about the players (or may
include false information), Hashimoto cannot be said to teach or suggest the
feature of securely determining whether the second game device player is
personally known to the first game device player outside of a virtual gaming
environment.” App. Br. 13, emphasis in original. The Examiner responds

3 Hashimoto, col. 15, ll. 41-46: “The exchange of information between
individual players is carried out through the exchange of cards. Players
cannot exchange cards while a game is being played, but may exchange
them before the game has started or after it has ended. However, the
permitted timing of a card exchange can be changed.”
4 See Amendment dated April 17, 2009.
Appeal 2011-000231
Application 11/464,895
6
that Hashimoto’s identification between individuals does not inhibit
individuals from determining if they are known to one another. Ans. 10. We
again agree with the Examiner.
Hashimoto describes an object of the invention is to allow “players to
verify . . . personal information” (Hashimoto col. 2, ll. 10-11), further
describing that “each game terminal device has a control means that can
exchange player personal introduction information with other game terminal
devices” (Hashimoto col. 3, ll. 26-28.) The personal information may
include “detailed personal information regarding each individual user”
(Hashimoto, col. 8, ll. 55-56) including the player’s e-mail address
(Hashimoto col. 3, ll. 65-66.) Thus, the exchange of the detailed personal
information allows a game device player to be personally identified to
another player with the provision of an email address providing chat
capabilities. See Ans. 4. Furthermore, Hashimoto’s user ID and password
provide security in the exchange of personal information. See, e.g., Ans. 5
citing Hashimoto col. 7, ll. 45-67.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Hashimoto
discloses the disputed claim limitation of securely determining whether the
second game device player is personally known to the first game device
player outside of a virtual gaming environment as required by claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and, for the same
reasons, the rejections of claims 5 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hashimoto together with the rejections of dependent claims 3,
7-9, 11, 13, and 15-17 not separately argued. Furthermore, for the same
reasons and in the absence of separate argument for patentability, we sustain
the rejections of dependent claims 4 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Hashimoto and Perlman.
Appeal 2011-000231
Application 11/464,895
7

Claims 6 and 14
In connection with claims 6 and 14 Appellant contends that the claim
requires that “each user must input codes for the other user” and that “[t]hese
codes are. . . obtained outside of the virtual environment.” App. Br. 14,
(emphasis in original). According to Appellant, “[u]nlike an ability to
‘friend’ someone simply by accepting an online request, appellant’s double-
authentication technique requires that each participant knows the other
outside of online gaming. This is not disclosed by Hashimoto either.” Id.
The Examiner responds that “the cited claims do not implicitly or
otherwise limit the exchange of player information through a personal
exchange and in point of fact encompasses the remote exchange of player
names.” Ans. 11. Addressing the limitation of “outside of a virtual gaming
environment,” the Examiner refers back to the response concerning claims 1,
5-11 and 13-17. Id. The Examiner further finds that,
Hashimoto teaches the utilization of a player name or player I.D.
to determine which secondary player to request an exchange of
business cards and the utilization or equivalent presentation of the
first user's I.D. to the second player, from which the second player
determines if they wish to approve the exchange of information

(Ans. 5) thereby disclosing the input of codes by each user for the other user
as required by claim 6. We agree with the Examiner (including for the
reasons supra in connection with claim 1), and find that Hashimoto discloses
the disputed limitations of claim 6. In addition, and contrary to Appellant’s
argument (App. Br. 14), we find that claim 6 does not require that the codes
be obtained outside the virtual environment such that Appellant’s arguments
are not commensurate with the scope of claim 6. Accordingly, we sustain
Appeal 2011-000231
Application 11/464,895
8
the rejection of claim 6 and, for the same reasons, the rejection of claim 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hashimoto.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Hashimoto discloses (1)
“securely determining whether the second game device player is personally
known to the first game device player outside of a virtual gaming
environment” as required by claim 1, and (2) the input of codes by each user
for the other user as required by claim 6. Therefore, we sustain the
rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-11, and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hashimoto and the rejection of 4 and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Hashimoto and Perlman.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3-17 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj