PTAB

IPR2015-01970

Activision Blizzard Inc v. Acceleration Bay LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Distributed Game Environment
  • Brief Description: The ’344 patent describes a computer network for multiplayer gaming environments. The technology centers on broadcasting information using a "flooding" technique across a network specifically configured as a non-complete, m-regular graph, where each participant has a fixed number (m) of connections to neighboring participants.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-19 are obvious over DirectPlay in view of Lin.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: DirectPlay (a 1998 book detailing Microsoft’s DirectX Application Program Interface) and Lin (a 1999 technical paper titled "Gossip versus Deterministic Flooding").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that DirectPlay discloses the claimed "computer network for providing a game environment." DirectPlay teaches a flexible, hardware-independent Application Program Interface (API) for developing multiplayer games, including features like matchmaking lobbies and support for various network transports (e.g., TCP/IP). However, DirectPlay does not teach the specific network topology and broadcast mechanism. Petitioner contended that Lin supplies these missing elements by disclosing the use of a "flooding" protocol over "Harary graphs," which are inherently m-regular (each node has exactly m connections), non-complete (not all nodes are interconnected), and m-connected (robust against node failures), thus meeting the core limitations of the challenged claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA developing a multiplayer game using the DirectPlay framework would have been motivated to consult the state of the art for reliable and scalable broadcast protocols. Petitioner asserted four independent motivations: (1) DirectPlay was designed as a flexible interface intended to be used with various underlying network protocols like the one described in Lin; (2) both references address the same technical problem of broadcasting information to multiple participants; (3) DirectPlay teaches the need for scalability to support thousands of players, and Lin's Harary graph flooding provides a scalable solution; and (4) DirectPlay emphasizes reliability, which Lin's protocol explicitly provides.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references. The combination involved implementing a known, well-documented network protocol (Lin) within a well-defined software framework designed for such integration (DirectPlay), which was a predictable and straightforward engineering task.

Ground 2: Claims 1-11 and 16-19 are obvious over Lin in view of the knowledge of a POSITA.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lin (a 1999 technical paper) and the general knowledge of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lin, by itself, discloses the fundamental technical features of the patent: a computer network where participants (nodes) broadcast information using a flooding protocol over an m-regular, non-complete graph. Lin explicitly describes these network characteristics in the context of Harary graphs. Petitioner contended that applying this known network architecture to the field of computer gaming was an obvious step for a POSITA, as multiplayer gaming was a well-known application for robust and efficient network communication protocols.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was simply to apply a known solution to a known problem. Lin's disclosure of an efficient and reliable broadcast method for generic computer networks would have been immediately recognized by a POSITA as beneficial for improving performance in the known field of multiplayer online games.
    • Key Aspects: This ground serves as an alternative to Ground 1, asserting that the core invention was already present in Lin and its application to gaming was merely a predictable use. Petitioner further argued that dependent claim limitations, such as peer-to-peer connections (claims 6-7) and TCP/IP connections (claim 8), were common and obvious implementation choices for a POSITA building upon Lin's generic network disclosure, representing nothing more than routine design choices.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed constructions for several key terms under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard:
    • m-regular: "each node is connected to exactly m other nodes."
    • non-complete graph: "graph in which at least two nodes are not connected to each other."
    • m-connected: "dividing the network into two or more separate parts would require the removal of at least m nodes."
  • Petitioner also addressed two means-plus-function limitations in claim 13:
    • means for identifying a broadcast channel for a game of interest: Petitioner argued the function is "identifying a broadcast channel for a game of interest" and the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification is "a game web site through which players can view the state of current games and register new games" or equivalents.
    • means for connecting to the identified broadcast channel: Petitioner identified the function as "connecting to the identified broadcast channel" and the corresponding structure as a software "broadcaster component" that interfaces with a "game application program" or equivalents.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-19 of Patent 6,701,344 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.