PTAB

IPR2018-01243

Valve Corp v. PalTalk Holdings Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Server-Group Messaging System for Interactive Applications
  • Brief Description: The ’686 patent describes a networked system for managing communications in multi-person, collaborative computer applications. The system uses a central "group messaging server" to receive messages from host computers, aggregate them, and forward the aggregated messages to other hosts in the group to maintain application consistency.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 7, 12, 18, 26, 27, 45, 46, 62, and 63 are obvious over Aldred in view of RFC 1692.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Aldred (International Publication No. WO 94/11814) and RFC 1692.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Aldred disclosed a collaborative working environment for a network of workstations that supports a broad range of applications. This system used a "Central Serialisation Point" (CSP) to collect all events from participating applications (a "Sharing Set"), serialize them, and broadcast them to all members to maintain consistency. Petitioner asserted this CSP met the limitations of the claimed "group messaging server," and the "Sharing Set" corresponded to the claimed "message group." However, Petitioner contended Aldred did not explicitly disclose "aggregating" message payloads. RFC 1692, which described the Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux), was introduced to teach this element. RFC 1692 disclosed combining multiple short transport segments into a single IP datagram to improve network utilization and reduce host load.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine RFC 1692 with Aldred to improve network performance. Aldred’s system, used for applications like shared drawing surfaces, would generate many small packets (e.g., drawing orders, user events). RFC 1692 was explicitly designed to optimize the transmission of such small packets. Since Aldred’s architecture was designed to be independent of the underlying transport network, a POSITA would find it straightforward to apply the TMux protocol to aggregate Aldred’s small event messages into fewer, larger packets, thereby achieving the predictable benefit of reduced network load.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because the combination involved applying a known network optimization technique (multiplexing from RFC 1692) to a compatible system (Aldred) to achieve the well-understood result of improved network efficiency.

Ground 2: Claims 22-27, 41-46, and 58-63 are obvious over Aldred and RFC 1692 in further view of Ulrich.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Aldred (WO 94/11814), RFC 1692, and Ulrich (Patent 5,466,200).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Aldred/RFC 1692 combination to address claim limitations related to computer games and proximity-based messaging. Petitioner argued that Ulrich disclosed a networked interactive gaming system with a central hub that managed communications between players. Crucially, Ulrich’s hub could selectively transmit game updates only to players located "in the same general area of the simulated environment." This teaching was asserted to meet limitations requiring message group membership to change based on player activity or location within a game.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Ulrich's selective message-filtering technique into the Aldred/RFC 1692 framework when implementing a large-scale game. In such an environment, broadcasting every player's update to every other player, as Aldred’s CSP would do, is highly inefficient. Ulrich provided a solution to this known problem by limiting updates based on proximity. A POSITA would apply this teaching to Aldred's CSP to reduce unnecessary data transmission, thereby improving performance and scalability, particularly over lower-bandwidth network links.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as predictable. Aldred's CSP and Ulrich's central hub were analogous network topologies serving a similar function. Modifying the CSP to maintain a database of player locations and filter outgoing messages, as taught by Ulrich, was a logical and straightforward design choice for improving a networked gaming application.

Ground 3: Claims 36 and 55 are obvious over Aldred and RFC 1692 in further view of Denzer.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Aldred (WO 94/11814), RFC 1692, and Denzer (Patent 5,307,413).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added Denzer to the primary combination to address the limitation of "compressing said aggregated payload." Petitioner asserted that while the base combination taught forming an aggregated payload (via RFC 1692), it did not explicitly teach compressing it. Denzer disclosed a data compression facility that intercepted TCP/IP packets, compressed them using conventional algorithms, and then transmitted the smaller packets.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to apply Denzer's compression technique to the aggregated packets created by the Aldred/RFC 1692 system for the clear benefit of reducing packet size. Petitioner argued that RFC 1692’s multiplexing (which reduces the number of packets) and Denzer’s compression (which reduces the size of packets) were well-known, complementary techniques for reducing overall communication load. A POSITA seeking to optimize network performance would naturally consider using both methods.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in this combination. Applying a known data compression utility (Denzer) to network packets before transmission was a standard practice for improving performance. Integrating this functionality into the data flow of the Aldred/RFC 1692 system would be a predictable implementation yielding the expected result of reduced bandwidth consumption.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR for claims 1, 3, 7, 12, 18, 22-27, 36, 41-46, 55, and 58-63, and that those claims be found unpatentable and canceled.