PTAB

IPR2016-00933

Bungie Inc v. Acceleration Bay LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Computer Network for Game Environment
  • Brief Description: The ’344 patent discloses a computer network for multi-participant game environments. The core technology involves broadcasting information using a "flooding" technique across a network configured as a non-complete, m-regular graph, where each participant (node) has exactly 'm' connections.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-12 and 16-19 are obvious over DirectPlay in view of Lin.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: DirectPlay (a 1998 book, "Inside DirectX") and Lin (a 1999 technical report, "Gossip versus Deterministic Flooding...").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that DirectPlay teaches a flexible Application Program Interface (API) for developing multiplayer games that can run over various computer networks, including peer-to-peer architectures. DirectPlay emphasized the need for scalability and reliability to support a future of gaming with thousands of players. However, DirectPlay did not mandate a specific network topology. Petitioner argued that Lin discloses the precise network structure claimed in the ’344 patent. Lin taught a "flooding" broadcast protocol for disseminating information over a "Harary graph," a network topology that is inherently m-regular, non-complete, and m-connected—the key features of the challenged claims. The combination of DirectPlay's gaming environment with Lin's specific, high-performance network structure allegedly rendered the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner provided four primary motivations for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to combine the references:
      • DirectPlay was designed as a flexible interface to run on any network, and Lin disclosed an efficient and reliable network suitable for this purpose.
      • Both references addressed the same technical problem of reliably broadcasting information to multiple participants in a network.
      • DirectPlay taught the need for a scalable network to support large games, and Lin disclosed a scalable network solution using Harary graphs.
      • DirectPlay taught the need for a reliable network, and Lin disclosed a highly reliable flooding protocol that guarantees message delivery as long as the network remains connected.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references because applying Lin's well-understood and reliable network protocol to DirectPlay's gaming framework would predictably result in a more scalable and reliable multiplayer gaming experience.

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 report) and the general knowledge of a POSITA.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lin alone taught the core inventive concepts of the ’344 patent: the use of a flooding protocol over an m-regular, non-complete Harary graph. Lin described this as a generic and efficient method for reliable broadcasting in computer networks. The application of this existing network technology to the specific field of computer gaming, as claimed in the ’344 patent, was presented as an obvious step.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to apply Lin's efficient and reliable broadcast protocol to the well-known field of multiplayer gaming to achieve predictable improvements in performance, scalability, and stability. Petitioner contended this was merely the application of a known technique to a known problem (improving network gaming) to obtain predictable results. Further, other limitations such as using TCP/IP connections or running participants as processes on a computer were argued to be obvious, routine design choices for a POSITA implementing Lin's generic network.
    • Expectation of Success: The expectation of success would have been high, as Lin itself demonstrated the reliability and efficiency of its proposed network structure and protocol. Applying this known-successful technique to computer gaming would be expected to yield the same benefits.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "m-regular": Petitioner proposed this term means "each node is connected to exactly m other nodes."
  • "non-complete graph": Petitioner proposed this term means a "graph in which at least two nodes are not connected to each other." This construction is explicitly supported by the language of claim 1.
  • "m-connected": Petitioner proposed this term means "dividing the network into two or more separate parts would require the removal of at least m nodes."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12 and 16-19 of the ’344 patent as unpatentable.