Disney Enterprises, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 2, 2021

2019004936 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/368,513 12/02/2016 Philippe Paquet 0260365C1 6467
63649 7590 02/02/2021
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
C/O FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP
26522 LA ALAMEDA AVENUE, SUITE 360
MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691
EXAMINER
GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@farjami.com
farjamidocketing@yahoo.com
ffarjami@farjami.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PHILIPPE PAQUET and STEVEN MAKOFSKY
Appeal 2019-004936
Application 15/368,513
Technology Center 2600
BEFORE JEREMY J. CURCURI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–30.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Disney Enterprises, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004936
Application 15/368,513

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “adaptive rendered environments using user
context.” Spec. 2:2–3. Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
21. A method of using a system including a processor
for use with a display, the method comprising:
determining, using the processor, a viewing perspective
of a user, and a user context data corresponding to a real-world
position of the user of a virtual environment relative to the
display, wherein the viewing perspective of the user switches
between a first person view and a third person view;
altering, using the processor when the viewing
perspective of the user is the first person view, an eye contact of
a non-player character in the virtual environment with the user
based on the viewing perspective of the user and the user
context data to obtain a first altered feature of the virtual
environment;
rendering, using the processor, the first altered feature of
the virtual environment on the display when the viewing
perspective of the user is the first person view;
altering, using the processor when the viewing
perspective of the user is the third person view, at least one of
the eye contact and a physical action of the non-player character
based on the viewing perspective of the user to obtain a second
altered feature of the virtual environment; and
rendering, using the processor, the second altered feature
of the virtual environment on the display when the viewing
perspective of the user is the third person view.

Appeal 2019-004936
Application 15/368,513

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:

Name Reference Date
Brush II US 5,907,328 May 25, 1999
Cheng US 6,396,509 B1 May 28, 2002
Miller US 2011/0242134 A1 Oct. 6, 2011

REJECTION
Claims 21–30 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Cheng, Miller, and Brush II. Non-Final Act. 5–20.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 21–30 over Cheng, Miller, and
Brush II
The Examiner finds Cheng, Miller, and Brush II teach all limitations
of claim 21. Non-Final Act. 5–9.
In particular, the Examiner finds Cheng teaches “determining . . . user
context data corresponding to a real-world position of the user of a virtual
environment relative to the display” as recited in claim 21. Non-Final Act.
5–6 (citing Cheng col. 5, ll. 34–37, col. 6, ll. 20–34). The Examiner finds
Cheng “fails to disclose an altered gaze condition of a non-player character”
as recited in claim 21. Non-Final Act. 7; see also Appeal Br. 16, Claims
App. (“altering . . . when the viewing perspective of the user is the first
person view, an eye contact of a non-player character in the virtual
environment with the user based on the viewing perspective of the user and
the user context data to obtain a first altered feature of the virtual
Appeal 2019-004936
Application 15/368,513

4
environment”) (emphasis added). The Examiner finds Miller discloses “an
altered gaze condition of a non-player character.” Non-Final Act. 7 (citing
Miller ¶ 47).
The Examiner reasons
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to include in the first person and
third person perspective as disclosed by Cheng, using the gaze
condition as disclosed by Miller for altering the focus as
disclosed by Cheng, the altering of a gaze condition of an
augmented reality character, as disclosed by Miller, to maintain
or exhibit awareness between characters, with the awareness at
points in time relating to a user’s/avatar’s sense space, in that
Cheng discloses avatars and virtual objects and Miller discloses
the augmented reality character being implemented as either an
augmented reality character or as an avatar.
Non-Final Act. 8.
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
“[T]here is no gazing or eye contact by a non-avatar in Cheng.”
Appeal Br. 11. “[T]he observer in Miller is the user of the portable device.
As such, the observer in Miller has the viewing perspective of the user [and]
is the third person view, and not the first person view or a view of an avatar
of the user in the virtual world.” Appeal Br. 13.
In response, in particular, the Examiner explains
Applicant argues Miller discloses the observer is the user
of the portable device, and the viewing perspective of the user
is the third person view and not the first person view or a view
of an avatar of the user in the virtual world. Examiner responds
Cheng discloses the viewing perspectives and first person view
and a third person view. Miller discloses an augmented reality
character maintaining or exhibiting awareness.
Appeal 2019-004936
Application 15/368,513

5
Ans. 12.
In reply, Appellant further argues
the ability to switch between a 1st person viewpoint and a 3rd
person viewpoint, without more, would not have motivated one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cheng and Miller, such
that when the viewing perspective of the user is the first person
view, an eye contact of a non-player character with the user
may be altered based on the viewing perspective of the user and
the user context data, as required by independent claim[] 21.
Reply Br. 3.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
We determine the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21.
Appellant’s Specification discloses:
Utilizing the received user context data corresponding to
a user context of user 202, virtual environment 234b may be
rendered presenting an altered feature based on the user context
data. Virtual environment 234b shows character 236b and scene
center point 238. Scene center point 238 may correspond
generally to scene center point 238 of Figure 2A. However, as
shown in Figure 2B, character 236b is shown interacting with
user 202 instead of scene center point 238. Using the user
context, character 234b may look, speak, point at, or otherwise
interact directly with user 202. Thus, virtual environment 234b
presenting an altered virtual environment using user context
data, user 202 may feel a deeper emotional connection with
virtual environment 234b.
Spec. 15:8–16. Appellant’s Specification further discloses: “Figure 2B
shows virtual environment 234b presenting an altered feature based on the
real world position of user 202.” Spec. 16:4–5.
Appeal 2019-004936
Application 15/368,513

6
These disclosed concepts are captured in claim 21 with the following
key limitations: “determining . . . user context data corresponding to a real-
world position of the user of a virtual environment relative to the display”;
and “altering . . . when the viewing perspective of the user is the first person
view, an eye contact of a non-player character in the virtual environment
with the user based on the viewing perspective of the user and the user
context data to obtain a first altered feature of the virtual environment.”
Appeal Br. 16, Claims App. (emphases added).
Cheng discloses “receiving from and transmitting to participants 14
data concerning interaction, motion and other selected features and
behaviors of virtual objects . . . obtaining and transmitting data to the server
respecting its participant’s interaction in the environment . . . and
multimedia data.” Cheng col. 5, ll. 34–41. Cheng further discloses “provide
either/both third and first person views.” Cheng col. 6, ll. 18–19.
In the cited portions of Cheng, we do not readily see “determining . . .
user context data corresponding to a real-world position of the user of a
virtual environment relative to the display.” Appeal Br. 16, Claims App.
(emphasis added). Rather, Cheng describes interactions in the virtual
environment—not the real-world user. Cheng col. 5, ll. 34–41.
Miller discloses:
During the interactivity, the augmented reality character is
capable of maintaining or exhibiting awareness of an observer.
The observer, in one embodiment, is the user of a portable
device, who can view the augmented reality character through a
screen of the portable device. As the user moves the portable
device around in three dimensional space, the augmented reality
character maybe look back a[t] the user. In one embodiment,
the augmented reality character looks back at the user by
Appeal 2019-004936
Application 15/368,513

7
tracking the location of the portable device, as it is moved in the
three dimensional space.
Miller ¶ 47.
In the cited portion of Miller, we do not readily see “determining . . .
user context data corresponding to a real-world position of the user of a
virtual environment relative to the display” Appeal Br. 16, Claims App.
(emphases added). Rather, Miller describes tracking the position of the
portable device—not the position of the real-world user relative to the
portable device. Miller ¶ 47. There is no indication that Miller’s character is
doing anything other than interacting with a scene center point on the
portable device. Miller ¶ 47, Fig. 8.
Thus, in the cited portions of Cheng and Miller, we do not readily see
“determining . . . user context data corresponding to a real-world position of
the user of a virtual environment relative to the display.” Appeal Br. 16,
Claims App. (emphasis added). Further, to the extent Miller describes
altering an eye contact of a non-player character, we do not readily see
altering . . . when the viewing perspective of the user is the first
person view, an eye contact of a non-player character in the
virtual environment with the user based on the viewing
perspective of the user and the user context data
[corresponding to a real-world position of the user of a virtual
environment relative to the display] to obtain a first altered
feature of the virtual environment.
Appeal Br. 16, Claims App. (emphasis added).
In addition, in our review of the record, we also determine Brush II,
Figure 2, left-hand side, also gives no indication that the character is doing
anything other than interacting with a scene center point. Brush II, Fig. 2,
left-hand side.
Appeal 2019-004936
Application 15/368,513

8
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22–25,
which depend from claim 21.
Independent claim 26 recites the same key limitations as claim 21.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27–30,
which depend from claim 26.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–30 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21–30 103(a) Cheng, Miller, Brush II 21–30

REVERSED