NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1150 (Serial No. 10/211,128)

IN RE MASAYUKI CHATANI and GLEN VAN DATTA

Colby B. Springer , Carr & Ferrell LLP, of Palo Alto, California, argued for appellant. On the brief was Robert J. Yorio

. Thomas W. Krause , Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With hi m on the brief were Stephen G. Walsh , Acting Solicitor, and Benjamin D.M. Wood , Associate Solicitor. Appealed from: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1150 (Serial No. 10/211,128)

IN RE MASAYUKI CHATANI and GLEN VAN DATTA

__________ ________________ DECIDED: November 19, 2007

__________________________ Before MAYER, Circuit Judge , JACOBS, Chief Judge *, and PROST, Circuit Judge

. PER CURIAM. Masayuki Chatani and Glen Van Datta (collectively, “Chatani”) appeal the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, affirming the examiner’s rejecti on of claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, 17-20, and 22-24 of Chatani’s app lication, No. 10/211,128 (the “’128 appl ication”), as anticipated by U.S. patent number 6,560,636 (the “’636 patent”) to Cohen et al. Ex Parte Masayuki Chatani and Glen Van Datta , Appeal No. 2006-2251 (Oct. 18, 2006). Because the board properly construed Chatani’s claim and found it anticipated by Cohen, we affirm

. BACKGROUND The ’128 application claims a method fo r a multi-user application that manages participants in an online session so that if the first participant (the “host”) exits the

______________________________

* Honorable Denn is Jacobs, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.session, the system detects the departure, notifies the other participants, and re-assigns host functionality to a remaining partic ipant so the session continues without interruption. The crux of t he parties’ dispute is whether t he steps in representative claim 1, reproduced here, must be performed sequentially.
1. A method of managing participants in an online session of a multi-user application, comprising: initiating an online session of the multi-user application, the online session including two or more participants comp rised of network computers that are communicatively linked to a computer network; detecting that a first participant has disconnected from the online session, wherein the first participant is responsible for managing certain managerial functionality associated with the running of the multi-user application; broadcasting a notification to existing par ticipants of the onlin e session over the communication network, thereby notifying the existing par ticipants that the first participant has disconnected from the online session; re-assigning the functionality associated with the first participant to an existing participant of the online session. The board relied on the disclosure of Cohen as a single prior art reference disclosing each and every element of the clai med invention. Cohen likewise teaches a method for transferring managerial responsibi lity from an exiting host to a remaining participant in an online sessi on. Chatani assert ed a difference between his invention, which detects that a first participant has disconnected from the online session, and Cohen’s invention, which requires that a host change packet be sent to other participants before disconnection . The board appreciated the difference between the two inventions, but nevertheless found t he claimed condition was drafted broadly enough to read on the other condition. On appeal, Chatani reiterates that his in vention is novel because it solves the “unexpected departure problem” by alerting on line participants to the host’s departure without requiring any affirmative action on the par t of the host. He argues that the claim

2007-1150 2requires performance in the order written, and because Cohen does not require each element in the ’636 pat ent to be performed in a partic ular order, the claim is not anticipated by Cohen. The Solicitor disagrees, arguing that (i) the method’s steps do not recite an order, (ii) t he logic and grammar of the cl aim language does not require performance in the order writt en, and (iii) the spec ification neither requires nor suggests such a narrow construction of the claim. DISCUSSION Claim construction is re viewed de novo on appeal. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs. , Inc. , 138 F.3d 1448, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). During prosecution, claims must be given their “broadest reasonable interpretation,” In re Hyatt , 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000), so this court reviews th e board’s interpretation of disputed claim language to determine whether it is “reasonabl e” in light of the evidence before the board. In re Morris , 127 F.3d 1048, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 1997). There is no dispute that the claimed method does not recite an order of performance, and we agree with the board that Chatani’s claim need not be read sequentially. The board correctly determined that the claimed condition broadly recites detecting disconnection from the online sessi on. The claim does not dictate whether a non-human system or online participants per form the “broadcasting” or “detecting” steps. An artisan in the field could read the claim to include a scenario in which the host sends a broadcast notificatio n that he or she “has di sconnected” to the other participants and then disconnects; receipt of t he notification leads t he other participants to detect or discern that the host composit ion has changed. So the claim language on its face does not require se quential performance, and we decline to infer what should

2007-1150 32007-1150 4 have been made explicit in the claim during prosecution. To arrive at Chatani’s proposed construction would require improperly reading limitations into the claim. “Anticipation is a question of fact,” Hoover Group, Inc. v. Custom Metalcraft, Inc. , 66 F.3d 299, 302 (Fed. Cir. 1995), as is what prior art discloses, Para-Ordinance v. SGS Importers , 73 F.3d 1085, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Chatani distinguishes his invention from Cohen’s on t he basis of his system’s me thod of detecting the host’s unexpected departure independent of the hos t’s own actions. The claim language, however, is not limited to a particular meth od of detection or departure. There is no limitation in the ’128 application that pr events the term “has disconnected” from being interpreted to include a participant’s detec tion that the host “has disconnected” after receiving the host change packet. Moreover, cl aim 10 of Cohen explicitly recites, “in response to the first host client exiting ... receiving at the remaining clients a host change notification packet sent by the departing first host.” This claim demonstrates that Cohen contemplates the first host exit ing prior to the remaining hosts receiving notification, which would allo w them to detect that the first host has disconnected. Therefore, the claim can be read to include the prior art. Both inventions initiate a session, detect a departure, notify those re maining, and re-assign host functionality. The claim language does not limit the claims to detecting that the host has disconnected from an online session unexpectedly and independent of acti ons taken by the host. Because Cohen’s disclosure c ontains each element of Ch atani’s claims, there is substantial evidence to support the boar d’s anticipation determination.