Ex Parte Arrasvuori et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 24, 2014

11394019 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JUHA ARRASVUORI, JUKKA A. HOLM, ANTTI ERONEN,
TIMO KOSONEN, KAI HAVUKAINEN, and MIKKO HEIKKINEN
____________________

Appeal 2012-001632
Application 11/394,019
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JAMES P. CALVE, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-001632
Application 11/394,019

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Juha Arrasvuori et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-29. App. Br. 10-11. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 11, and 21-26, are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter and reads:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code
for one or more programs,
the at least one memory and the computer program code
configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the
apparatus to perform at least the following,
specify via a multiplayer video game a real-world
fitness task to be performed;
receive monitored information regarding
performance of the fitness task; and
determine to provide indication regarding the
performance of the fitness task, wherein the indication takes
into account one or more factors regarding a real-world
environment associated with a user, wherein the factors relate to
topography of the environment, a climatic condition of the
environment, or a combination thereof, during the fitness task,
and
wherein completion of the fitness task results in
advancement in the video game.

Appeal 2012-001632
Application 11/394,019

3
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-19, and 22-29 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hood (US 5,213,555; issued May. 25,
1993).
II. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hood and Henderson (US 6,450,922 B1; issued Sep. 17,
2002).
III. Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hood.
IV. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hood and Medlock (US 4,984,805; issued Jan. 15, 1991).

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 22-26, the Examiner found that Hood
discloses an apparatus that is caused to determine to provide an indication
regarding performance of a fitness task, wherein the indication takes into
account one or more factors regarding a real-world environment associated
with the user, and wherein the factor relates to topography of the
environment. Ans. 5-6 (citing Hood, col. 4, l. 64 – col. 5, l. 11; fig. 4). The
Examiner also found that the indication takes into account one or more
factors regarding a real-word environment associated with the user “because
the user experiences a change in pedaling resistance based on the virtual hill
profile, wherein the profile is associated with the real world environment of
the user (the user is interfacing with the virtual hill profile via the exercise
bicycle).” Id. at 13.
Appeal 2012-001632
Application 11/394,019

4
In contrast, Appellants contend that Hood employs a programmed hill
profile to simulate a terrain, and thus, “it is clear that Hood does not disclose
topography of a ‘real-world environment associated with a user’ during a
fitness task used as a factor for an indication.” App. Br. 13. Appellants
further contend that “[b]y definition, a virtual reality, e.g., an in-game
topography, is not a real-world environment.” Id. at 14. Appellants also
contend that the real-world environment in Hood is “the gym” and “the real-
world topography is the topography of the gym.” Reply Br. 7.
We give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification, reading claim language as it would be interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We note that Appellants’ Specification
describes that “real-world fitness tasks” may include “running, swimming,
climbing, and/or use of exercise equipment.” Spec. p. 2, ll. 18-19, p. 5, ll.
14-16. The Specification also states “determinations regarding an
environment in which a user performs a real-world fitness task might be
made,” including determinations regarding the ambient temperature,
humidity, and topography of the environment. Id. at p. 13, ll. 12-16
(emphasis added). The Specification also describes that environmental
factors should be taken into account “in determining how challenging an
environment is,” and how the factors “might affect required energy
exertion.” Id. at p. 21, l. 20 – p. 22, l. 3. Consistent with Appellants’
Specification, we construe the claimed “one or more factors regarding a real-
world environment associated with a user” to be factors regarding the actual
physical environment in which a user performs a real-world fitness task.
Appeal 2012-001632
Application 11/394,019

5
Hood discloses “a system that permits a number of participants using
individual exercise machines to compete or race against one another over
simulated courses, with the progress of the race displayed on a video
monitor.” Hood, col. 1, ll. 31-35. Hood describes that “[a] programmed hill
profile is employed to simulate the race course terrain,” and a rider is
prompted to shift gears (and, thus, adjust a torque resistance of an exercise
bike) when an upcoming hill is shown on a monitor display. Id. at col. 4, l.
64 – col. 5, l. 22. Hood further discloses a system that monitors
performance of a real-world fitness task (i.e., use of exercise equipment), but
does not disclose that its system “takes into account one or more factors
regarding a real-world environment associated with a user, wherein the
factors relate to topography of the environment,” as claimed. Hood fails to
disclose that the “topography of the physical environment” in which a user
uses an exercise bike (e.g., a gym environment) is taken into account by its
system. In addition, we find that in-game topography, such as a simulated
race course terrain, is different from a factor regarding the actual physical
environment in which a user performs a real-world fitness task, as called for
by the claims. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 22-
26, and their dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 12-19, and 27-29.
Rejections II and III
The Examiner’s application of the additional teachings of Henderson
and knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art in rejecting the remaining
dependent claims does not cure the deficiencies of Hood. Ans. 8-9. Thus,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 5 over Hood and Henderson, or the
rejection of claims 10 and 20 over Hood alone.

Appeal 2012-001632
Application 11/394,019

6
Rejection IV
Independent claim 21 includes limitations directed to “one or more
factors regarding a real-world environment factors associated with the one
user” similar to those discussed supra in regard to the rejection of claims 1,
11, and 22-26. The Examiner’s findings and reasoning regarding Medlock
fail to cure the deficiencies of Hood. Ans. 9. Thus, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 21 over Hood and Medlock.

DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-29.

REVERSED

mls