Ex Parte Gavin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 14, 2012

10873066 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 14, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ANDREW SCOTT GAVIN
____________________

Appeal 2010-003359
Application 10/873,066
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003359
Application 10/873,066
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
3 and 5-20. Claim 4 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The claims are directed to a system and method for dynamically
loading game software for smooth game play in electronic entertainment
devices. (Spec.¶ [0002]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for dynamically loading game software, the
method comprising:

generating a display of a current game environment;

determining a load time of a next game environment,
wherein the next game environment is not yet displayed;

identifying in the current game environment a load
boundary associated with loading the next game environment,
wherein the location of the load boundary in the current game
environment is based on the load time of the next game
environment; and

loading instructions corresponding to the next game
environment into a memory prior to a character entering the
next game environment, loading of the instructions
commencing when the character crosses the load boundary in
the current game environment such that game play is not
interrupted by loading instructions for display of the next game
environment when the character enters the next game
environment.

Appeal 2010-003359
Application 10/873,066
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Ito US 6,999,094 B1 Feb. 14, 2006
(Filed Sep. 12, 2000)
Powers WO 00/10130 Feb. 24, 2000

REJECTION
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ito and Powers.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Based on the Appellant's arguments, we will decide the appeal of the
obviousness rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-20 on the basis of claim 1. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ANALYSIS
Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested
"determining a load time of a next game environment, . . . the location of the
load boundary in the current game environment is based on the load time of
the next game environment," within the meaning of claim 1?
A.
The Examiner makes the following findings:
Ito in view of Powers therefore determines a load time of
a next game environment inasmuch as the boundary is initially
set by the game developer for the express purpose of allowing
sufficient time to process the next game environment such that
Appeal 2010-003359
Application 10/873,066
4
the player does not notice substantial lag times when moving
the avatar between environmental zones.
It is noted that Ito discusses applications to games in
which a character is moving relatively slow, such as the RPG
game of 1:31-35, or in which a character is moving relatively
fast, such as a racing game of 1:54-2:9, which demonstrates that
situations are known in the art that would require varying
amounts of time for environment data to be loaded. Such
teachings indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of invention that the time needed to load one or more future
areas into memory must be less than the time between
activating the load command (in Ito, when a character's line of
sight is near a boundary) and displaying the loaded area(s) (in
Ito, when the character's line of sight enters one or more areas).
(Ans. 8-9 (emphasis added)).
The Appellant advances the following argument:
[T]he Examiner relies on a theory of inherency in speculating
that a "goal of smooth transitions" requires "that load time must
be taken into account." January 21, 2009 Office Action,
8. . . . Examiner provides no such basis for arguing that
determination of actual load time for a next game environment
is necessary to a "goal of smooth transitions."
(App. Br. 18-19).
The Examiner responds:
The Examiner has provided technical reasoning to support the
conclusion that determining a load time of a next game
environment is inherent in the prior art references. For
instance, it was established above that both Ito and Powers seek
to pre-load instructions such that smooth transitions are
possible as an avatar moves from one environment to another.
If the purpose is to "pre-load" (i.e., load earlier in time) such
that play is not interrupted, the time needed to perform the
loading must be known.
(Ans. 16).
Appeal 2010-003359
Application 10/873,066
5
Appellant responds in the Reply Brief:
If the load time "must be known," as argued by the Examiner, it
follows that there must also be some teaching in Ito and Powers
that requires and/or incorporates load time information. The
Examiner remains unable, however, to point to any such
teaching other than a perceived general "goal." The Examiner
simply assumes that load time must have been determined and
used at some point, despite all indications that load time is
irrelevant and unused under the actual methods disclosed by Ito
and Powers. Determination of the actual load time cannot be
necessary to Ito or Powers, if both can (and do) operate without
it.
(Reply Br. 6).
"In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a
basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the
determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows
from the teachings of the applied prior art." Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d
1461, 1464 (BPAI 1990).
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. The Examiner's finding that
"[i]f the purpose is to 'pre-load' (i.e., load earlier in time) such that play is
not interrupted, the time needed to perform the loading must be known"
(Ans. 16) reasonably supports the inherent characteristic that the actual load
time is necessary for smooth transitions. See Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d at
1464. Appellant presents no or insufficient evidence and argument to rebut
the Examiner's findings. For example, Appellant does not explain any
methods to set boundary lines for uninterrupted display that are not based on
load time.
Even assuming arguendo that "load time" is not inherent in the
references (as Appellant's argue), we nevertheless find that the combination
Appeal 2010-003359
Application 10/873,066
6
of Ito and Powers suggests that the load boundary location is set based on
load time because both references provide uninterrupted game images by
setting the load bounty position to allow at least the load time to elapse
before the next environment images are displayed. The combination of
teachings from the references therefore at least suggests "determining [the]
load time of [the] next game environment" and "location of the load
boundary in the current game environment is based on the load time of the
next game environment" so that the boundary line location provides
uninterrupted images. (Claim 1).
B.
Appellant makes the following additional contention:
[T]he Appellant disputes the Examiner's parenthetical assertion
that the "distance relationship" of the prior art includes "load
lines at a specified distance from boundaries." Examiner's
Answer, 17. As documented above, Ito's singular "reading start
line" or Powers' singular "zone of awareness" has been
specifically defined as being set at a specified distance from
the avatar. See Ito, ABSTRACT; Powers 17:22-23.
(Reply Br. 7).
Appellant's argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner relies on
Power's "intersection boundary" for the teaching of a load line a distance
from a boundary. (Ans. 6-7; Power's Fig. 6). Appellant presents no or
insufficient evidence and argument to rebut this finding.
Based on this record, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that the cited references, either alone or in combination, would have
taught or suggested "determining a load time of a next game
environment, . . . the location of the load boundary in the current game
environment is based on the load time of the next game environment,"
Appeal 2010-003359
Application 10/873,066
7
within the meaning of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-20 on the basis of claim 1.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection under 103(a) of claims 1-3 and 5-
20.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb