Ex Parte Hochmuth et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 25, 2012

10924714 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROLAND HOCHMUTH and BRUCE BLAHO
____________

Appeal 2009-015232
Application 10/924,714
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, THOMAS S. HAHN, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.

POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-015232
Application 10/924,714

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-14 and 25-30. Claims 15-24 have been canceled. App.
Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a technique for establishing remote
connections. See Title. Claim 1 is reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized:
1. A method comprising:
contacting a remote resource having connection data for a
viewer to interact with a plurality of senders;
acquiring the connection data from the remote resource;
establishing connections to the plurality of senders on behalf
of the viewer and in response to the connection data; and
receiving graphical data over the connections from the
plurality of senders.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Roy US 5,838,909 Nov. 17, 1998
White US 2002/0002074 A1 Jan. 3, 2002

The Rejections
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6-14, and 25-30 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by White. Ans. 3-9.1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over White and Roy. Ans. 10-12.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed February
17, 2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 5, 2009; and (3) the Reply
Brief filed August 5, 2009.
Appeal 2009-015232
Application 10/924,714

3
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
Claims 1-3, 7, 25-28, and 302
Regarding representative independent claim 1, Appellants argue
White only discloses establishing a connection to one sender or host on
behalf of the viewer and fails to state establishing connections to multiple
senders. App. Br. 9-10, 12. Appellants further assert that White’s
connection is not a direct connection between a game client and the hosts
and that the connections, as recited, are not inherent in White during
tournament play. App. Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 5-9.

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that White discloses establishing connections to senders on behalf of the
viewer?

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of representative claim 1 which calls for, in pertinent part,
establishing connections to senders on behalf of the viewer. Notably,
claim 1 does not require establishing a direct connection with the senders,
contrary to Appellants’ contentions. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 5. We thus find
any argument that White fails to have a direct connection between a game
client and the hosts is not commensurate in scope with claim 1.

2 While claims 25-28 and 30 are discussed separately, Appellants refer to the
arguments made for claim 1. See App. Br. 22-24. Accordingly, we group
claims 25-28 and 30 with claims 1-3 and 7.
Appeal 2009-015232
Application 10/924,714

4
White discloses establishing a connection between a game client (e.g.,
a viewer) and a host (e.g., a server) by using a master server (e.g., includes a
remote resource). See ¶ 0042; Ans. 3 (citing to ¶ 0042). Rightfully, as
Appellants argue (App. Br. 12), this passage in White, as well as Paragraph
0018 (App. Br. 10), only discuss establishing a connection to one host or
sender. However, as the Examiner explains (see Ans. 3 (citing to
¶ 0050), 13-14), White further states that the system allows game players or
clients (e.g., viewers) to compete with each other during a tournament and
that the tournament may be facilitated by “a single or a plurality of game
hosts . . . ” (¶ 0050).
Appellants contend this passage in White fails to disclose that
connections are established between the game client and hosts. App.
Br. 12. We disagree. First, claim 1 does not recite what the senders are
connected to or that they are directly connected to some other element, but
rather only that connections to the senders are established on behalf of the
viewer. Thus, White does not have to show that senders are directly
connected or connected to a game client. Second, White explicitly describes
a tournament embodiment where the system has multiple game hosts
(¶ 0050), and thus, some type of connection to these hosts (e.g., senders) is
established as broadly as recited. Third, even assuming that claim 1
requires a connection between the senders (e.g., the hosts) and the viewer
(e.g., game client), White discloses some indirect connections between the
hosts and viewer are established, otherwise the client (e.g. the viewer) would
not be able to receive the game host list and other tournament play
information. See ¶¶ 0042, 0050. Thus, White does not further have to
Appeal 2009-015232
Application 10/924,714

5
demonstrate “exactly how the disclosed tournament play works.” App. Br.
13.
Lastly, based on the above explanation, we do not have to
demonstrate that White inherently discloses establishing connections to the
senders as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 5-9.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have therefore not persuaded us
of error in the rejection of independent claim 1 or claims 2, 3, 7, 25-28, and
30 not separately argued with particularity.

Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, Appellants argue White discusses player
preferences concerning how to communicate with a game host without
interacting with the master server but not discuss communicating viewer
preferences defining what graphical data is presented to the viewer. App.
Br. 16.

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6 by finding
that White discloses presenting graphical data to the viewer by selectively
presenting the graphical data according to a viewer-defined profile or
policy?

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 6. The Examiner has at least two reasons (e.g., the
disclosed set up preferences, selecting a game from a list) that White
Appeal 2009-015232
Application 10/924,714

6
discloses presenting graphical data to the viewer by selectively presenting
the graphical data according to a viewer-defined profile or policy. See
Ans. 4, 15. For example, the Examiner finds that White teaches a game
client selecting a game (e.g., a profile) and that the game is presented with
graphical data corresponding to this selection. See Ans. 4 (citing ¶ 0043),
15. We find this position reasonable.
Appellants have not defined the phrase, “viewer-defined profile or
policy,” in the disclosure or provided any examples of what the profile or
policy includes. See Spec. ¶¶ 0023, 0038. Thus, we give the phrase,
“viewer-defined profile,” its broadest reasonable construction to include an
option or feature defined by or based on a selection by user. As the
Examiner explains (Ans. 15), White discloses a viewer selecting a game
from a game list (e.g., an option), which in turn returns the graphical data
associated with the game to the viewer selected. See ¶ 0043. As such, we
need not address whether the discussion of the player setting up preference
in White (¶ 0042) necessarily discloses presenting graphical data to the
viewer according to the viewer-defined profile or policy. App. Br. 16.
For the above reasons, Appellants have therefore not persuaded us of
error in the rejection of claim 6.

Claims 8-14
Regarding representative independent claim 8, Appellants argue the
claim recites the sender information acquired by the viewer is dependent on
the identity of the viewer, while White provides a game host list to the client
that queries the master server. App. Br. 19. Appellants also contend that the
White’s available game host list may be sorted for each game client but the
Appeal 2009-015232
Application 10/924,714

7
game host identities list do not vary according to the client’s identity. App.
Br. 22.

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8 by finding
that White discloses processing queries received over the network, the
queries are directed to acquiring senders’ identities for given viewers?

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 8, which recites in pertinent part, processing queries
received over the network, the queries are directed to acquiring senders’
identities for given viewers. Much of what is argued by Appellants (App.
Br. 19-22) is not commensurate in scope with claim 8. See also Ans. 16.
That is, Appellants allege that White fails to disclose the sender information
acquired by the viewer is dependent on the identity of the viewer (App. Br.
19) and the game host identities list do not vary according to the client’s
identity (App. Br. 22). However, as stated above, claim 8 recites only that
the queries are directed to acquiring a sender’s identities for the viewers and
not that the sender information is dependent on the viewer’s identity or that
the senders’ identities vary according to the viewer’s identity.
Additionally, as the Examiner notes (Ans. 5, 17), White discloses the
queries (e.g., communication based on client-initiated session) are directed
to master server (e.g., received over the network) to acquire a list of
currently available game hosts (e.g., list of senders) for each viewer. ¶ 0042.
This list of game hosts must include an identity of each host or sender,
Appeal 2009-015232
Application 10/924,714

8
otherwise the player would not be able to select or choose the game host as
White provides. See id. White thus discloses the queries are directed to
acquiring the senders’ identities for given viewers as recited in claim 8.
For the above reasons, Appellants have therefore not persuaded us of
error in the rejection of claim 8 or claims 9-14 not separately argued with
particularity.

Claim 29
Regarding claim 29, Appellants refer to arguments made for claim 25.
App. Br. 24. We are not persuaded for the reasons discussed above in
connection with claim 1. Appellants also argue that White has “no
disclosure of ‘parsing an electronic file for the connection data’ as recited in
appellants’ claim 29.” App. Br. 25.

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 29 by finding
that White discloses parsing an electronic file for the connection data where
the electronic file is the remote resource?

ANALYSIS
Given the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 29. Appellants’ arguments merely consist of summarizing
the Examiner’s position (App. Br. 24-25) and then asserting that White does
not disclose parsing an electronic file for the connection data where the
electronic file is the remote resource (App. Br. 25). Other than stating White
Appeal 2009-015232
Application 10/924,714

9
discusses receiving a request from a game client, Appellants provide no
evidence to support this conclusion. See id.
To counter Appellants’ contention, the Examiner responds by stating
claim 29 does not define where the parsing occurs. Ans. 18. We agree to
the extent that the claim does not recite the location where the parsing
happens. Additionally, the Examiner finds that White discloses (a) the
master server includes software (e.g., an electronic file) that collects
information on currently operating game hosts and (b) that the client
communicates with the master server to receive a game host list for allowing
the player to choose a game host. Id. (citing to ¶¶ 0038, 0042). Given this
disclosure, the Examiner concludes White discloses parsing an electronic
file for connection data as recited. See id. Appellants have not rebutted the
Examiner’s findings in the Reply Brief. See generally Reply Brief.
Thus, on balance, we find in the Examiner has articulated an
explanation of how White discloses the limitations in claim 29 that remain
undisputed. We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 29.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Appellants refer to arguments presented for claim 1 when addressing
the obviousness rejection of claims 4 and 5. App. Br. 25-26. We are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument for the reasons disclosed above with
regard to White and claim 1 and need not address whether Roy cures any
deficiency. This argument also fails to rebut persuasively the Examiner’s
prima facie case of obviousness (Ans. 10-12) – a position we find
reasonable.
Appeal 2009-015232
Application 10/924,714

10
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-14 and 25-30.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-14 and 25-30 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

rwk