Ex Parte Bastian

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 2, 2015

12420311 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2015)

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.
12/420,311 04/08/2009 Geannie M. Bastian 12071-001 2249
29391 7590 07/02/2015
BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS & MAIRE, P. A.
390 NORTH ORANGE AVENUE
SUITE 2500
ORLANDO, FL 32801
EXAMINER
SHIN, ANDREW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GEANNIE M. BASTIAN
____________________

Appeal 2013-005748
Application 12/420,311
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 9–14, and 17–20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2013-005748
Application 12/420,311

2
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for facilitating seat selection at a
performance venue by displaying virtual views of the performance space
from a selected seat. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for facilitating seat selection for a performance
venue having a performance space and a plurality of seats, the
method comprising:
generating a three-dimensional digital model of the
performance venue;
identifying a plurality of spatial coordinates
corresponding to the plurality of seats within the digital model;
generating a plurality of views of the performance space
corresponding to the plurality of spatial coordinates; and
selectively displaying the plurality of views to
prospective spectators;
wherein the plurality of spatial coordinates identified
include, for each of the plurality of seats, a plurality of eye
heights, said plurality of eye heights including an average adult
height of an eye of a seated adult viewer and an average child
height of an eye of a seated child viewer; and
wherein the plurality of views of the performance space
generated include, for each of the plurality of spatial
coordinates, a static view of the performance space and a fly-in
view between the corresponding seat and the performance
space.

REFERENCES
Mei
Imamura
US 2005/0131658 A1
US 2006/0232605 A1
June 16, 2005
Oct. 19, 2006
Appeal 2013-005748
Application 12/420,311

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 9–14, and 17–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Mei and Imamura. Ans. 3.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments the Examiner has erred. Because we agree with at least one of
Appellant’s arguments, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3,
9–14, and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mei and
Imamura.
The Examiner finds Mei’s disclosure of semi-panoramic interactive
views of a performance space from each seat in a performance venue teaches
or suggests fly-in views between each seat and the performance space. Ans.
4 (citing Mei ¶ 108). Appellant argues the cited portion of Mei merely
discloses “that a user can ‘pan around the view from prospective seats,’” and
“that at each fixed seat location, a panoramic view is provided.” App. Br. 3.
Appellant therefore contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
“ignor[ing] the claim language, which requires a fly-in view between the
corresponding seat and the performance space.” Id. at 4. We agree with
Appellant’s contention.
The Specification discloses “a fly-in view can proceed between the
performance space and [a] seat,” and includes “animated views of a
progression to the corresponding seat.” Spec. ¶¶ 18, 28. Thus, a “fly-in
view between a seat and the performance space,” as recited in claim 1, is an
animated progression of views that either “zooms-in” on the performance
space from the seat or “zooms-in” on the seat from the performance space.
Appeal 2013-005748
Application 12/420,311

4
We agree with Appellant that Mei’s disclosure of panning the view of
the performance space from a seat does not teach or suggest a “fly-in” view
between the seat and performance space. We disagree with the Examiner’s
conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted
Mei’s teaching of panning “the virtual camera from the leftmost side of the
performance space . . . to the rightmost side of the performance space . . . to
mean that the virtual camera at the leftmost side of the performance [space]
would ‘fly’ to the rightmost side of the performance space.” Ans. 9. We
therefore reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1–3, 9–14, and 17–20 for
this reason.
DECISION
For the reasons indicated above, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–
3, 9–14, and 17–20 is reversed.

REVERSED
ELD