Intellectual Pixels Limited (“IPL”) owned the ’109 patent, and Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC (“Sony”) petitioned for inter partes review. Sony originally challenged claims 1-18, but IPL statutorily disclaimed claims 13-18, leaving claims 1-12 at issue.
The ’109 patent discloses methods for generating digital images using an external visual server (claims 1-7), and systems implementing those methods (claims 8-12). The patent explains that image generation can be resource-intensive, and that user-operated devices may have difficulty rendering complex images. The patent’s purported advance over prior systems is that the external server handles all of the visual processing. Under the claimed approach, the client device receives user input, sends that input to the server, receives a compressed image from the server, decompresses the image, and displays it. The external server is responsible for generating the new image, thereby taking that burden off the client device.
Claim 1 is exemplary and recites:
A method of hosting an interactive software application comprising:
running at a server the interactive software application;
receiving at the server user input signals from a client device, wherein the user input signals are used to control updating of the state of the interactive software application;
generating at least one updated image at the server in response to updating the state of the interactive software application; and
compressing the at least one updated image and transmitting the compressed updated image to the client device, wherein the server transmits the updated image as a compressed frame that can be decompressed and displayed as an updated image at the client device.
The primary relevant prior art reference was U.S. Patent No. 6,409,602 (“Wiltshire”). Wiltshire disclosed a computer gaming system in which the game is hosted “exclusively on a server/host computer,” while users play through separate client or terminal computers. The client computers receive user input and transmit that input to the host computer, which uses the input to select a new image that is sent back to the client computer for display. In one embodiment, Wiltshire describes its server executing a “game program,” generating an image such as a “compressed video MPEG stream,” and transmitting that image to the client. Wiltshire’s definition of “game” included video games, such as Doom.
The case reached the Federal Circuit after an earlier appeal and remand. In the Board’s first final written decision, the Board held that Sony had not shown the challenged claims to be unpatentable. The Board reasoned that Wiltshire did not disclose the “generating” limitation because Wiltshire only disclosed selecting an image from a predetermined set, rather than rendering a new updated image. The Board did not reach whether Wiltshire disclosed the “compressing” limitation, although it stated that Wiltshire was silent as to the content or origin of the “compressed video MPEG stream.”
In the first appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decision. The court held that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s finding that Wiltshire failed to disclose generating a new image. The court explained that Wiltshire disclosed operating its system with Doom, and the parties agreed that Doom required generating a new image “to reflect the current state of the player within the game world.” The court limited its decision to the Board’s determination that Wiltshire did not disclose the “generating” limitation and remanded for further proceedings.
On remand, the Board followed the Federal Circuit’s prior decision and found that Wiltshire, by disclosing operation with a game like Doom, disclosed generating new updated images at the server. The Board further found that those new updated images were transmitted to the client computers as compressed MPEG streams. Therefore, the Board found the “compressing” limitation satisfied and held the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over Wiltshire in combination with other references. In particular, the Board held claims 1 and 3-12 unpatentable over Wiltshire and Saha, and claim 2 unpatentable over Wiltshire, Saha, and Chen.
On appeal from the remand decision, IPL first argued that the Board had gone beyond the Federal Circuit’s prior mandate. IPL relied on two statements from the Board’s first final written decision. First, the Board had said that Wiltshire did not disclose using games like Doom in the manner proposed by Sony. Second, the Board had said that Wiltshire was silent as to the content or origin of the “compressed video MPEG stream.” IPL argued that, because the Federal Circuit’s first appeal did not expressly set aside every one of those statements, the Board could not reach a different view on remand.
The Federal Circuit rejected that argument. As to the first statement, the court explained that its earlier decision had already vacated the Board’s finding that Wiltshire did not disclose the “generating” limitation. In the first appeal, the Federal Circuit held that Wiltshire disclosed applying its system to games like Doom, and the parties agreed that Doom required generating new images. Thus, on remand, the Board’s finding that Wiltshire disclosed server-side generation of updated images was compelled by the Federal Circuit’s prior mandate, not barred by it.
The Federal Circuit then addressed IPL’s second point, concerning the “compressed video MPEG stream.” The court explained that the Board’s first decision had not actually decided the “compressing” limitation as an independent basis for its judgment. The first Board decision turned on the “generating” limitation. Once the Board found that Sony had failed to prove the “generating” limitation, the Board did not need to separately decide whether the prior art satisfied the “compressing” limitation. Likewise, the first Federal Circuit appeal addressed only the “generating” limitation. The “compressing” issue therefore remained open on remand.
The Federal Circuit emphasized that appellate courts review judgments, not every statement in an opinion. A statement in the Board’s first opinion about the compressed MPEG stream did not become binding on remand merely because it appeared in that opinion. Because the “compressing” issue was not part of the first judgment and was not decided in the first appeal, the Board did not violate the mandate rule by addressing it on remand.
The Federal Circuit also explained that, in any event, the reasoning of the first appeal undercut IPL’s position. Both the “generating” and “compressing” limitations refer to the same “updated image.” Once the Federal Circuit held in the first appeal that Wiltshire disclosed generating updated images in the context of Doom, it followed that Wiltshire was not silent as to the content or origin of the compressed MPEG stream. In that context, the stream contained newly generated updated images.
IPL also challenged the Board’s obviousness decision as unsupported by substantial evidence, but the Federal Circuit rejected that challenge as well.
Therefore, the Federal Circuit held that the Board did not violate the prior mandate, rejected IPL’s substantial-evidence challenge, and affirmed the Board’s decision that claims 1-12 of the ’109 patent are unpatentable.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]