US 12005349

US Patent 12005349, titled "Synchronized gaming and programming," is an active patent currently assigned to Winview IP Holdings LLC. The sole inventor listed is David B. Lockton.

The patent was filed on September 29, 2021, and was granted/issued on June 11, 2024.

Abstract:
The patent describes a system and methods to encourage viewer participation in games, contests, and social interactions by synchronizing them with programming (such as television shows or commercials) using a second screen device (like a cell phone, iPad®, or laptop). The programming can be television, Internet (e.g., streamed video), or any other type. The gaming can include games of skill or chance, such as scavenger hunts or treasure hunts.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (System): This claim describes a system involving a server and mobile devices. The server is configured to detect and synchronize with programming to provide game data. It executes a game using synchronization points, determines the delay needed for precise synchronization based on different signal reception times among players, and adjusts the game's presentation to equalize the experience for all participants. The server then transmits game data to mobile devices, which receive the data, display the game, and capture user input.
• Claim 12 (Method): This claim outlines a method performed by a server for synchronizing gaming with programming. It involves the server detecting and synchronizing with programming to provide game data, executing a game based on synchronization points, determining the necessary delay for precise synchronization due to varying signal reception times among players, and equalizing the game's presentation by adjusting for these delays. Finally, the server transmits game data to mobile devices for player interaction.
• Claim 22 (System): Similar to Claim 1, this system includes a server and mobile devices. The server handles detecting, synchronizing, executing the game, determining delay, equalizing presentation, and transmitting game data. A key distinguishing feature is that the mobile devices are also configured to determine participant latency and synchronize the game for each individual participant.
• Claim 23 (System): This system, like Claim 1, comprises a server and mobile devices. The server performs the core functions of detecting, synchronizing, executing the game, determining delay, equalizing presentation, and transmitting game data. Uniquely, the mobile devices are configured to continuously check that pre-produced data files are precisely synchronized with the programming by using inserted audio or video signals.
• Claim 24 (Method): This method, similar to Claim 12, involves a server and mobile devices. The server performs detecting, synchronizing, executing the game, determining delay, equalizing presentation, and transmitting game data. A distinguishing aspect is that the mobile devices continuously check for precise synchronization of pre-produced data files with the programming using inserted audio or video.
• Claim 25 (Method): Similar to Claim 12, this method involves a server and mobile devices. The server detects, synchronizes, executes the game, determines delay, equalizes presentation, and transmits game data. In this claim, the mobile devices are responsible for determining participant latency and then synchronizing the game for each individual participant.
• Claim 26 (System): This system includes a server and mobile devices. The server is configured to detect and synchronize with programming, execute a game, and transmit game data. A key feature is that the server specifically equalizes participant delay to ensure that all players receive the game at substantially the same time. The mobile devices receive game data, display the game, and receive input.
• Claim 27 (System): This system, comprising a server and mobile devices, focuses on the server's role in detecting and synchronizing with programming, executing a game, and transmitting game data. Importantly, the server determines the amount of delay needed for precise game synchronization with programming, where this delay is specifically based on signal reception differences among the plurality of participants. The mobile devices handle receiving game data, displaying the game, and receiving input.
• Claim 28 (System): This system involves a server and mobile devices. The server detects and synchronizes with programming, executes a game, and transmits game data. It also performs two specific equalization steps: substantially equalizing the game's presentation by adjusting for the programming's delay for all participants, and determining the amount of delay for precise synchronization based on signal reception differences among participants. The mobile devices receive game data, display the game, and receive input.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
As of May 12, 2026 (the date the Google Patents page was fetched), US Patent 12005349B2 is involved in ongoing litigation:

• A PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) case, IPR2026-00245, has been filed and is currently pending.
• Two US cases have been filed in the New Jersey District Court: 3:25-cv-01143 and 3:25-cv-01146.
• The first worldwide family litigation related to this patent family was filed on October 2, 2006.

Here is a list of known litigation involving US patent 12005349, based on the provided patent text:

1. US case filed in New Jersey District Court

   • Jurisdiction: New Jersey District Court
   • Case Number: 3:25-cv-01143
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated, but the case number (25) suggests 2025.
   • Current Status: Critical
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.

2. PTAB case IPR2026-00245

   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2026-00245
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated, but the case number (2026) suggests 2026.
   • Current Status: Pending
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but identified as "Petitioner".
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.

3. US case filed in New Jersey District Court

   • Jurisdiction: New Jersey District Court
   • Case Number: 3:25-cv-01146
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated, but the case number (25) suggests 2025.
   • Current Status: Not explicitly stated, but listed under "Family has litigation" with no "Critical" tag like the other New Jersey case.
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 12005349, which is currently active and pending institution. This means the patent's claims have not yet been challenged through a final written decision at the PTAB, and its defensive posture is currently untested in this proceeding.

IPR2026-00245 — FanDuel, Inc. et al. v. Winview IP Holdings LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-02-03
• Status: Pending. The petition has been filed, and the PTAB is currently evaluating whether to institute the trial. The last modification date of 2026-05-12 indicates ongoing activity, likely related to preliminary responses or PTAB internal review.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the assigned judge panel is not publicly available at this stage of the proceeding from the provided search results.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art references, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103) are not detailed in the provided information or readily available from general public records without direct access to the petition.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. The statutory deadline for the institution decision is typically six months from the filing date, which would be around 2026-08-03.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable as the proceeding is pending institution.
• Settlement / termination: No information regarding settlement or termination is available as the proceeding is pending.
• Appeal: Not applicable as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: As this IPR is still pending institution, it currently has no direct impact on the patent's validity. However, the existence of a petition from a known entity like FanDuel, Inc. suggests that the patent's claims are being scrutinized. If instituted, it will indicate the PTAB believes there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable, requiring the patent owner to defend those claims.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US patent 12005349 remain untested by a PTAB Final Written Decision. The single Inter Partes Review, IPR2026-00245, is in the pre-institution phase, meaning no claims have been canceled or confirmed patentable by the PTAB yet. Without details on the specific claims challenged in the petition for IPR2026-00245, it is not possible to identify which claims are currently under threat or which remain entirely untested by this specific proceeding.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, if IPR2026-00245 is instituted and proceeds to a Final Written Decision, § 315(e)(2) would bar the petitioner (FanDuel, Inc. et al.) and their privies from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. However, since the proceeding is pending institution, the scope of potential estoppel is not yet defined. For a defendant being asserted against who is not a privy to FanDuel, Inc. et al., all prior-art grounds remain potentially available for a future PTAB challenge.

The filing of IPR2026-00245 by FanDuel, Inc. et al. against Winview IP Holdings LLC indicates a potential dispute in the gaming and programming synchronization space. The current assignee, Winview IP Holdings LLC, is identified, and Unified Patents is noted as the source for the PTAB data, indicating their involvement in tracking or possibly initiating these types of challenges. This pattern suggests an active interest in challenging patents in this area, but as only one proceeding is listed, it's premature to conclude an aggressive pattern of IPR filings or appeals from the patent owner.

Recommended next steps

• Since IPR2026-00245 is pending institution, the next key milestone for this proceeding is the institution decision, expected around 2026-08-03. Monitoring this decision will be critical. If instituted, the full scope of challenged claims and prior art will become clear.
• It is advisable to obtain and review the petition for IPR2026-00245 to understand the specific claims being challenged and the prior art asserted against them. This would inform potential defenses or counter-arguments if facing assertion of this patent.
• Continue monitoring the USPTO PTAB E2E system for updates on IPR2026-00245, specifically for the institution decision and any subsequent trial stages.

Inventors

• David B. Lockton (Employer at time of filing unclear from patent text)

Original assignee

Winview IP Holdings LLC.
The patent describes a system for synchronized gaming and programming, allowing users to participate in games of skill or chance synchronized with television or internet programming via mobile devices. The '913 patent (US Pat. No. 5,813,913), a related prior art, describes a central computing system for grouping participants in games of skill and managing their skill levels and competition. Winview, Inc., a related entity, has offered mobile second-screen gaming applications. Winview, Inc. previously had a "real-money gaming app" that "synchronized live sports with real-time predictions" but ceased operations in 2020. Given the current assignee is Winview IP Holdings LLC, an entity typically associated with patent monetization, and the operating entity Winview, Inc. appears to be defunct, it is unlikely the current assignee is shipping a product embodying the claims. Winview IP Holdings LLC's primary line of business appears to be patent licensing and assertion. Their current status is operating, evidenced by ongoing litigation.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) shows the following assignment records for US patent 12005349:

• 2022-04-10 (executed) / recorded 2022-04-12 — Reel 058988/0609

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: LOCKTON, DAVID B.
  • Assignee: WINVIEW, INC.
  • Correspondent: LINDEMAN, LAWRENCE G. and LINDEMAN & FAHRNEY LLP, 26970 COVINGTON RD, LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA, 94024. This correspondent appears multiple times in this patent's chain.
  • Context: Transfer from inventor to operating company.

• 2023-10-02 (executed) / recorded 2023-10-02 — Reel 060912/0324

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: WINVIEW, INC.
  • Assignee: WINVIEW IP HOLDINGS, LLC
  • Correspondent: LINDEMAN, LAWRENCE G. and LINDEMAN & FAHRNEY LLP, 26970 COVINGTON RD, LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA, 94024. This correspondent appears multiple times in this patent's chain.
  • Context: Transfer from operating company to an intellectual property holding company.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12005349
    2021 : Application filed by Winview IP Holdings LLC
    2022 : Inventor assigned to Winview Inc
    2023 : Winview Inc assigned to Winview IP Holdings LLC
    2024 : Patent granted

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The transfer from "WINVIEW, INC." to "WINVIEW IP HOLDINGS, LLC" (Reel 060912/0324, executed 2023-10-02) indicates a move from a likely operating entity to a licensing-focused entity, strongly suggesting a shell entity. The name "IP Holdings" is a strong tell.

2. Known asserter in the chain — unclear. While Winview IP Holdings LLC is actively litigating, they are not explicitly on the common public NPE lists like Acacia Research Corp or Intellectual Ventures, based on the provided data. However, the presence of litigation and the "IP Holdings" name suggests they operate in a similar manner to known asserters.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. Lawrence G. Lindeman of Lindeman & Fahrney LLP (26970 Covington Rd, Los Altos, California, 94024) is listed as the correspondent for both recorded assignments (Reel 058988/0609 and Reel 060912/0324). This recurrence is a strong signal.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are two assignments recorded, with a gap of approximately 18 months between the two. While the second transfer is to an IP holding company, it's not a rapid sequence of multiple transfers through chained LLCs.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The patent was granted on 2024-06-11. The earliest litigation mentioned began in 2025. The assignment to Winview IP Holdings LLC occurred on 2023-10-02 (Reel 060912/0324), which is more than 6 months prior to the earliest indicated litigation, making this signal unclear without more precise litigation filing dates.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication of bankruptcy proceedings for the original assignee or assignors in the provided patent text or assignment records.

7. Privateering — unclear. While the transfer to an IP holding company could facilitate privateering, the provided information does not explicitly state that Winview IP Holdings LLC is asserting patents on behalf of another operating company against competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at any known defensive aggregators like RPX, AST, or LOT Network.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is based on two strong signals: the transfer to a shell entity, "Winview IP Holdings, LLC," indicated by the name and the nature of the transfer from an operating company (Reel 060912/0324, executed 2023-10-02), and the recurrence of the same correspondent attorney, Lawrence G. Lindeman, across both recorded assignments (Reel 058988/0609 and Reel 060912/0324). The current litigation further supports the patent assertion intent of Winview IP Holdings LLC.

USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 12005349, I will use the information available from the patent document itself, specifically the "Prior art date" and the "RELATED APPLICATION(S)" section, which lists a chain of patent applications that this patent claims priority from. These earlier applications and any patents cited within them are prime candidates for prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (novelty).

Based on the provided patent text, the most directly relevant prior art is often found within the documents explicitly cited by the patent examiner or the applicant. The patent text directly references several U.S. Patents in its background and detailed description. These are critical for a prior art analysis.

Here's a breakdown of the cited prior art within the text of US Patent 12005349:

1. U.S. Pat. No. 4,592,546 to Fascenda, entitled “Game of Skill Playable by Remote Participants in Conjunction with a Live Event.”

   • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 4,592,546 to Fascenda.
   • Publication/Filing Date: The patent text mentions a "Prior art date" of 2005-10-03, but this is the priority date for the current patent family, not for Fascenda '546. The Fascenda patent is described as being expired ("With the expiration of the U.S. Pat. No. 4,592,546 to Fascenda and Lockton"). While the specific publication/filing date for Fascenda '546 is not explicitly stated in the provided text, its expiration indicates it predates the earliest priority date of US12005349 (October 3, 2005). A quick search (which I cannot perform directly at this step) would confirm its filing/publication date. For the purpose of this analysis, we can infer it is significantly older.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a "Game of Skill Playable by Remote Participants in Conjunction with a Live Event" and introduces the concept of a "lock out" signal to prohibit entry of predictions after a competitor sees a play begin to unfold. It is incorporated by reference in US12005349.
   • Which claim(s) it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102: The Fascenda '546 patent is explicitly discussed as prior art providing the "lock out" signal concept. This concept is fundamental to many of the claims in US12005349, particularly those involving synchronizing game data and preventing unfair advantages based on delays. For example, independent claims 1, 12, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 all involve methods or systems for equalizing game experience, often by adjusting a "lock out" signal or similar game control data based on latency. The specific language in US12005349, such as "substantially equalizing receipt of lock out events relative to a televised/streamed event triggering a lock out" (as seen in the description of synchronizing in FIG. 6), directly builds upon or distinguishes itself from this prior art. Therefore, Fascenda '546 could potentially anticipate elements related to the core concept of using a lockout signal for fair competition in a game linked to a live event.

2. U.S. Pat. No. 5,813,913 to Berner and Lockton ('913 patent), titled "Central computing system for grouping participants having similar skill levels together in simultaneous, but separate, levels of competition playing an identical game."

   • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 5,813,913 to Berner and Lockton.
   • Publication/Filing Date: The patent text does not specify the exact publication/filing date for '913. Its discussion in the "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" section of US12005349 indicates it is prior art.
   • Brief Description: This patent provides a central computing system for grouping participants by skill level in simultaneous, but separate, competitions of an identical game. It also details communicating relative performances only to those at the same skill level, storing specific skill levels on a wireless receiving device, and using a telephonic link to update skill levels.
   • Which claim(s) it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102: While the '913 patent describes aspects of distributed gaming and grouping participants, its focus appears to be on skill-level grouping and score management rather than the latency equalization and synchronization with external programming that is central to US12005349. However, elements of "a server for executing a game" (Claims 1, 12, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28) and potentially "receiving input from a plurality of mobile devices" could find some foundational anticipation or motivation in the '913 patent's general framework for multi-participant gaming. The current patent specifically distinguishes itself by addressing the "user discouragement" that could arise from direct comparisons between players of disparate skills, which the '913 patent enables. Therefore, the '913 patent could be relevant to the broader context of distributed gaming but less directly to the specific latency synchronization mechanisms of US12005349.

It's important to note that the term "prior art" also encompasses all publicly available information about inventions existing at the time of the patent application's effective filing date. This includes patents, published applications, journal articles, websites, and even public use or sale. This analysis focuses on the prior art explicitly mentioned and discussed within the text of US12005349. For a comprehensive prior art search, one would typically examine all forward and backward citations, as well as perform keyword and classification-based searches in patent and non-patent literature databases.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US Patent 12005349

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art references that would render the claims of US Patent 12005349 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in the field of interactive gaming systems involving broadcast media and mobile devices.

Identified Prior Art References:

The US12005349 patent explicitly incorporates or references the following prior art, which serves as the basis for this obviousness analysis:

1. U.S. Pat. No. 4,592,546 to Fascenda (the '546 patent): Titled "Game of Skill Playable by Remote Participants in Conjunction with a Live Event," this patent describes a system using "lock out" signals to control the entry of predictions by remote participants in a game of skill synchronized with a live event.
2. U.S. Pat. No. 5,813,913 to Berner and Lockton (the '913 patent): This patent discloses a central computing system for grouping participants based on skill levels in simultaneous, separate competitions of an identical game. It also mentions wireless receiving devices and telephonic links for game interaction and skill level updates.
3. U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/692,356 (the '356 provisional), filed June 20, 2005: Titled "SYSTEMS AND METHODOLOGIES ENABLING A CELL PHONE BASED SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE OFFERING A VARIETY OF SCHEDULED GAMES IN CONNECTION WITH LIVE TELEVISION PROGRAMMING," this reference teaches the use of cell phones for subscription-based games synchronized with live television.
4. U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/723,301 (the '301 provisional), filed October 3, 2005: Titled "CELLULAR PHONE GAMES BASED UPON TELEVISION ARCHIVES," this reference establishes the concept of playing games on cellular phones based on archived television content.
5. U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/791,793 (the '793 provisional), filed April 12, 2006: Titled "A METHODOLOGY FOR EQUALIZING SYSTEMIC LATENCIES IN TELEVISION RECEPTION IN CONNECTION WITH GAMES OF SKILL PLAYED IN CONNECTION WITH LIVE TELEVISION PROGRAMMING," this reference directly addresses the problem of systemic propagation delays in television signal reception for games of skill and proposes a methodology for equalizing these latencies.

General Knowledge in the Art (GKA):

At the time of the priority dates for these provisional applications (2005-2006), a PHOSITA would have possessed knowledge of:

• The existence and use of digital television recording systems (DVRs) like TiVo™, which could introduce viewing delays.
• Cellular phone location technologies, such as Qualcomm's Snaptrack, SnapSmart, and Snapcore, used to determine a user's physical location.
• Techniques for content identification and synchronization, including audio/video recognition, watermarking, and fingerprinting.
• Established principles of client-server architecture and distributed computing.

Obviousness Combinations and Rationale:

The independent claims (Claims 1, 12, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28) of US12005349 generally describe a system and method for synchronizing games with programming, involving a server, mobile devices, detecting programming, executing a game with synchronization points, determining and equalizing latency for fair play, and transmitting game data.

Combination 1: '793 Provisional + '546 Patent + '913 Patent + '356 Provisional + '301 Provisional + GKA

Core Concept: This combination renders obvious a system and method for providing synchronized, interactive games on mobile devices in conjunction with television programming, where systemic latencies in television signal reception are detected and equalized to ensure fair competition among geographically dispersed participants.

Rationale:

1. Problem Recognition and Solution Framework ('793 Provisional): The '793 provisional directly identifies the core problem addressed by US12005349: "systemic latencies in television reception" that create unfairness in "games of skill played in connection with live television programming." It also explicitly proposes "a methodology for equalizing" these latencies. This reference provides the primary motivation for a PHOSITA to combine other elements to achieve latency equalization.
2. Interactive Game Mechanics ('546 Patent): The '546 patent teaches the fundamental concept of a "Game of Skill Playable by Remote Participants in Conjunction with a Live Event" that uses "lock out" signals to control input timing. A PHOSITA, seeking to implement the latency equalization methodology of the '793 provisional, would naturally apply it to such known interactive games to mitigate the competitive advantages arising from signal delays.
3. Server-Client Architecture and Participant Grouping ('913 Patent): The '913 patent describes a "central computing system" for managing participants and competition, including the grouping of participants and the use of "wireless receiving devices" and "telephonic links." This provides the necessary server-client framework for delivering game data and managing participant interactions. It would be obvious to a PHOSITA to implement the game mechanics of '546 and the latency equalization of '793 within such a distributed system. The concept of "cohorts" (groups of viewers with similar delay characteristics) for applying delay equalization, as described in US12005349, is a direct application and elaboration of the participant grouping concept from '913 in the context of latency.
4. Mobile Device Platform ('356 and '301 Provisionals): The '356 provisional explicitly teaches a "CELL PHONE BASED SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE OFFERING A VARIETY OF SCHEDULED GAMES IN CONNECTION WITH LIVE TELEVISION PROGRAMMING." Similarly, the '301 provisional discusses "CELLULAR PHONE GAMES BASED UPON TELEVISION ARCHIVES." Given these teachings, it would be obvious for a PHOSITA to utilize widely adopted "cellular phones" (or other mobile devices) as the "wireless receiving devices" for playing the latency-equalized, interactive games described by combining '793, '546, and '913.
5. Addressing Specific Latency Sources (GKA): The GKA regarding DVRs and varied broadcast methods (cable, satellite, over-the-air) that cause propagation delays was well-known, as acknowledged in the background of US12005349. A PHOSITA would be motivated to leverage this understanding, combined with the methodologies of the '793 provisional, to develop specific techniques for determining these delays (e.g., by asking users about their reception method, using location data like GPS from mobile phones to identify cohorts).

This combination makes obvious the subject matter of Claims 1, 12, 26, 27, and 28, which generally cover a server-based system and method for detecting programming, synchronizing a game, executing it using synchronization points, determining and equalizing delays based on signal reception differences, and transmitting game data to mobile devices for participation. The adjustment of lockout signals or the entire data stream to equalize receipt, as taught in '546 and further elaborated by '793, directly covers the equalization aspects.

Combination 2: Combination 1 + GKA (for client-side synchronization)

Core Concept: Building on Combination 1, this combination specifically addresses the aspects where mobile devices play a more active role in determining latency or maintaining synchronization.

Rationale for Claims 22, 25 (Mobile device determines and synchronizes participant latency):
US12005349 describes scenarios where "the client software is able to delay the presentation of the game data based on the viewers' cohort." In a distributed system, it is a common engineering choice to distribute processing tasks to client devices to improve efficiency, responsiveness, and adapt to local conditions. Given the overarching goal of latency equalization from the '793 provisional, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to implement portions of the delay determination and synchronization logic on the mobile device itself. For example, if the server determines cohort-specific delays, the client device could be tasked with applying that calculated delay locally before presenting game data. Alternatively, if methods for determining delays involve client-side user input (e.g., a user marking an event time) or location data (using GPS on the phone), it would be obvious to leverage the mobile device's capabilities to contribute to or even locally manage its specific latency adjustments.

Rationale for Claims 23, 24 (Mobile device continuously checks synchronization using inserted audio/video):
The '793 provisional aims for precise synchronization. US12005349 itself describes using "an audio signal, possibly sub-audible to humans, which is inserted into the taped audio track recognizable by the audio receiver in a cellular phone which would be utilized to start and/or continually keep the pre-produced data files resident on the cellular phone in synchronization with the telecast." Methods for embedding signals (e.g., watermarks, sub-audible tones) within audio/video streams for content identification and synchronization were well-known in the art. A PHOSITA, seeking to ensure continuous and precise synchronization as required by the '793 provisional's objective, would find it obvious to equip the mobile device (cellular phone, as per '356 and '301 provisionals) with the capability to detect such inserted audio or video signals (or use known audio/video recognition technologies) to monitor and adjust its internal game timing relative to the received programming. This represents a logical implementation detail for achieving robust and ongoing synchronization within the established system.

Conclusion:

Based on the explicit disclosures in the '546, '913, '356, '301, and '793 patents and provisional applications, combined with the general knowledge of a PHOSITA in distributed gaming systems and content synchronization, all independent claims of US Patent 12005349 would have been obvious. The '793 provisional serves as a direct roadmap to solving the latency problem, and the other references provide the components (interactive games, server architecture, mobile devices) and context for implementing that solution. The motivations stem from a desire to improve fairness, enhance the user experience, and efficiently distribute processing in networked applications.