LogFAQs > #983172245

willythemailboy posted...

There's nothing covered in this entire patent application that couldn't just as easily be describing World of Warcraft's mount system as of the release of Burning Crusade in 2006. At best the "novelty" of the application is combining that standard of player control to a capture system but the same type of system has been applied to so many types of games using it in one more cannot be considered novel. Nothing presented here should be eligible for a patent at all, and the only way one would be awarded is if the patent officer is completely unfamiliar with any electronic games released in the past 20+ years.

I'm not familiar with WoW, does it also include the elements for the dependent claims
"6. wherein the visual object is displayed in a miniature form compared to the displayed boarding object and/or the displayed air boarding object." and "12. The system of claim 9, wherein the player character boarding the boarding object includes a state where the player character dangles from the boarding object."?
And, can you point to exact documentation for it?
If so, congratulations, you can contact Palworld's attorney and write up their documentation, if they want it. If you can write the verbiage of the claims with exact references, to the broadest reasonable interpretation to one skilled in the art, that's a solid reason that the patent should be nullified. This is the first thing that defending patent attorneys do.

willythemailboy posted...

Again I'm not very familiar with this game genre but none of that is particularly novel, except possibly in the very specific combination of those factors. But if that is true, the patent application is written broadly enough that it would cover things outside the very specific combination of factors they're claiming. There's certainly nothing novel enough to justify locking out potential competitors for 20+ years.

1. This is not a patent application, this is a full-fledged patent.
2. Novel doesn't mean interesting or useful, it means unique, for patents. This combination, by your own admission, could be a unique.
3. It has a limited scope, it's still a system/processor/memory, aka electronic in nature, and, all of those dependent claims limit the scope.