Ex parte PEYRET

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 10, 1998

08280012 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 10, 1998)

Application for patent filed July 25, 1994.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte PATRICE PEYRET

_____________
Appeal No. 97-3256
Application 08/280,0121
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-15, which
Appeal No. 97-3256
Application 08/280,012
2
constitute all the claims remaining in the application.
Amendments after final rejection were filed on June 3, 1996 and
July 2, 1996. Both amendments were entered by the examiner.
The claimed invention pertains to a method and apparatus
for handling communications between a central broadcast facility
and a plurality of remote users who are responding to questions
asked by the central facility. Specifically, the invention
relates to a technique for ensuring that no tampering takes place
with the answers provided by the remote users.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A secured system of remote participation in
interactive games, the system comprising a transmission central
computer sending out cryptographic messages received by
television receivers during a television program, and a games
machine available to a televiewer of the television program
capable of reading the cryptographic messages and of sending back
the televiewer’s answer to questions asked in the messages,
wherein:
a) the games machine further comprises:
- means for counting consecutive periods of time
including a period of time Tr12 defined by the instant t1 of
reception of the message and the instant t2 of the televiewer’s
answer, and
a period of time Tr25 defined by the instant t2 of the
televiewer’s answer and the instant t5 of the forwarding of the
televiewer’s answer to the central computer;
- means for transmitting the televiewer’s answer and
the values Tr12 and Tr25 to the transmission central computer;
and wherein
Appeal No. 97-3256
Application 08/280,012
3
b) the central computer further comprises:
- means for counting periods of time including a
period of time Ta35 defined by the answering deadline t3 and by
the answer forwarding instant t5, and
a period of time Ta15 defined by the instant t1 of
transmission of the message and the answer forwarding instant t5,
- computation and checking means, the computation and
checking means including
means for verifying the relationship (1) Tr25 ô Ta35,
and
means for verifying the relationship (2) Tr12 + Tr25 =
Ta15 ± tolerance values, the verifying means (2) defining means
for verifying that an oscillation frequency used by the games
machine counting means has not been decelerated and subsequently
accelerated during the period of time Ta15,
and the computation and checking means rejecting the
answers when the relationships (1) and (2) are not verified.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Audebert et al. (Audebert) 5,073,931 Dec. 17, 1991
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 stand alternatively rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Audebert or under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Audebert.
Appeal No. 97-3256
Application 08/280,012
A reply brief was filed by appellant on December 23, 19962
but was denied entry by the examiner [Paper #14]. Accordingly,
we have not considered the reply brief in the preparation of this
decision.
4
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the2
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellant’s arguments set forth in the brief along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that Audebert does not anticipate the invention nor would
Audebert have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims 1-3 and 5-15.
Accordingly, we reverse.
Appeal No. 97-3256
Application 08/280,012
5
Audebert was cited by appellant as evidence of the
background of the invention. Audebert teaches a similar system
of communication between a central computer (server) and remote
terminal (device 1). The critical time periods in Audebert are
defined as follows:
1) T1 is the time at which a question is
asked;
2) T2 is the time at which a player has
entered an answer into the device 1;
3) T3 is the deadline for the player to
answer the particular question;
4) T4 is the time at which the answer to
the question is revealed to the player;
5) T5 is the time at which the server
requests the answer from the player’s
device 1;
6) T’5 is the time at which the device 1
receives the request for the answer from
the server (which is essentially the
same as T5); and
7) T6 is the time at which the server
enters the answers from the player;
[see column 11, line 63 to column 12, line 10]. Audebert teaches
the computation of parameters *T and *T . The first parameterint ref
is defined as the time period T’5 - T2, and the second parameter
is defined as T5 - T3 [see Figure 6]. These two values are
compared to ensure that a specific relationship exists between
them.
Each of independent claims 1, 6, 7 and 15 recites at
least the time periods T1, T2 and T5 which correspond to the same
Appeal No. 97-3256
Application 08/280,012
6
time periods of Audebert. Each of these independent claims
recites the calculation of time periods Tr12 = T2 - T1 and Tr25 =
T5 - T2 calculated at the player’s device. Each of these claims
also recites the calculation of time period Ta15 = T5 - T1
calculated at the server. Finally, each independent claim
recites a means for verifying the following relationship:
Tr12 + Tr25 = Ta15 ± tolerance values.
Appellant argues that Audebert does not calculate or
verify any time period based on the value T1 and, therefore, does
not anticipate or teach the relationships recited in the
independent claims. The examiner argues that the invention of
independent claims 1, 6, 7 and 15 is clearly disclosed by
Audebert or would have been obvious to the artisan in view of the
teachings of Audebert. We find ourselves in agreement with
appellant.
The examiner has failed to consider all the language of
the claims. The examiner has determined that the system of
Audebert is the same as the claimed invention because similar
functions are carried out by both devices. The examiner has
never addressed, however, how Audebert can meet the recitations
of Tr12 and Ta15 as well as the relationship set forth in the
claims when neither of these values is ever computed or acquired
Appeal No. 97-3256
Application 08/280,012
7
in Audebert. The examiner has simply determined that a
verification takes place in Audebert, but this verification is
not based on the same parameters as calculated and used in the
claimed invention. Since no calculated time periods in Audebert
are based on the point in time designated as T1 in the claims,
Audebert does not fully meet the invention as recited in
independent claims 1, 6, 7 and 15. Therefore, none of the
dependent claims is anticipated by Audebert either.
With respect to the rejection of the claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103, the examiner simply concludes that the claimed
invention would have been obvious to the artisan in view of
Audebert if Audebert does not anticipate the invention.
Appellant’s specification describes the claimed relationship
between Tr12, Tr25 and Ta15 as detecting a type of fraud which
can go undetected in Audebert. Absent appellant’s disclosure of
this problem with Audebert and the proposed solution, there is no
suggestion on this record for calculating the time periods set
forth in the claims and the relationship between them. The
examiner has never addressed this particular deficiency in the
Audebert teachings so that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of the obviousness of the claims on appeal.
Appeal No. 97-3256
Application 08/280,012
8
Therefore, this record fails to support the examiner’s rejection
of all the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In summary, we have not sustained either of the
examiner’s rejections of the claims. Accordingly, the decision
of the examiner rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-15 is reversed.
REVERSED

Appeal No. 97-3256
Application 08/280,012
9
)
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Nilles & Nilles
Firstar Center
Suite 2000
777 East Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53202-5345