Ex Parte Bongio et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 19, 201612725506 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 121725,506 82553 7590 Walter W. Duft 8616 Main Street Suite 2 FILING DATE 03/17/2010 02/23/2016 Williamsville, NY 14221 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jeremy P. Bongio 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. A US920090l87US1 9334 EXAMINER MARTELLO, EDWARD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2613 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/23/2016 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): wduft@duftlawoffice.com xbmufss@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEREMY P. BONGIO, SEAN L. DAGUE, andKURTR. TAYLOR Appeal2014-002949 Application 12/725,506 Technology Center 2600 Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, HUNG H. BUI, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-002949 Application 12/725,506 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Illustrative Claim 1. A method for managing object attributes in a virtual world environment, comprising: selecting a plurality of selected objects by a supplied criterion; visually identifying the plurality of objects to a user of the virtual world environment; receiving from the user an indication of a plurality of chosen objects from the plurality of selected objects; and modifying an object component for the plurality of chosen objects. Prior Art Bar-Zeev US 2010/0245376 Al Sept. 30, 2010 Examiner's Rejections Claims 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non- statutory subject matter. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bar-Zeev. 2 Appeal2014-002949 Application 12/725,506 ANALYSIS We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner's Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis. Section 1 OJ rejection of claims 15-20 The Examiner finds the scope of "computer readable storage medium" recited in claim 15, when read in light of paragraph 31 of Appellants' Specification, encompasses a non-statutory signal carrying medium. Ans. 15. In particular, the Examiner finds the electrical connection having one or more wires does not actually store data, but rather carries transitory data signals. Appellants have not persuasively explained how the electrical wires (and also the optical fiber) discussed in paragraph 31 do anything more than carry transitory signals. We sustain the rejection of claims 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Section 103 rejection of claims 1-20 The Examiner relies on paragraphs 23 and 48 (along with several other paragraphs) ofBar-Zeev to teach the steps recited in claim 1. Ans. 17- 20. Paragraph 23 discusses displaying virtual objects located in a virtual lobby to a user. The virtual objects are "selected" by the criterion of being located in the lobby, and are "visually identified" to the user by being displayed to the user, within the meaning of claim 1. Paragraphs 23 and 48 of Bar-Zeev discuss receiving relevancy rankings of the objects from the user, and making relevant objects more visible than less relevant objects. 3 Appeal2014-002949 Application 12/725,506 We agree with the Examiner that paragraphs 23 and 48 teach "receiving from the user an indication of a plurality of chosen objects from the plurality of selected objects; and modifying an object component for the plurality of chosen objects" within the meaning of claim 1. In addition to the Examiner's findings, we highlight paragraph 4 7 of Bar-Zeev discusses selecting either host-created content, or user-created content, or some other user requested content, and exposing the selected content to the user, which teaches "selecting a plurality of selected objects by a supplied criterion" (such as host-created content or user requested content) and "visually identifying the plurality of objects to a user of the virtual world environment" within the meaning of claim 1. The steps of receiving user rankings for the displayed content, and modifying the displayed content based upon the rankings as discussed in paragraph 48 of Bar-Zeev teaches the "receiving" and "modifying" steps of claim 1 as discussed above. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 3, 6, and 8-20, which fall with claim 1. With respect to claim 2, Appellants contend Bar-Zeev does not teach "the user supplying a second criterion by which the plurality of chosen objects are selected." App. Br. 14. However, we find Appellants' contention is inconsistent with the user rankings taught in paragraphs 23 and 48 of Bar-Zeev. We sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. With respect to claim 4, Appellants contend Bar-Zeev does not teach "the object component is a script associated with the chosen objects" because paragraph 38 of Bar-Zeev does not mention the ability to modify 4 Appeal2014-002949 Application 12/725,506 scripts. App. Br. 15. Appellants have not explained why modifying the script objects taught in paragraph 38 of Bar-Zeev using the methods of modifying objects taught by paragraphs 23 and 48 of Bar-Zeev was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007)). We sustain the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. With respect to claim 5, Appellants contend Bar-Zeev does not teach "the supplied criterion is a range," because the network distance of paragraph 28 of Bar-Zeev is a single value. App. Br. 15. Paragraph 28 of Bar-Zeev teaches virtual content can be relevant based on a level of trust, where a level of trust corresponds to a level of display for the virtual content. A "social network or environment can be leveraged in which an object that is trusted by a trusted friend may be considered trusted to you, although the greater the 'network distance,' the less trust is ascertained." i-f 28. The network distance, contrary to Appellants' contention, is not a single value, but is rather a range of distances corresponding to levels of trust. Appellants have not persuasively explained a difference between the range recited in claim 5 and the levels of trust taught by Bar-Zeev. We sustain the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. With respect to claim 7, Appellants contend paragraph 22 of Bar-Zeev does not teach "setting a lighting attribute." App. Br. 15. Paragraph 22 of Bar-Zeev teaches displaying an object using lighting characteristics such as visibility, color, and opaqueness was within the level of ordinary skill. We sustain the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 5 Appeal2014-002949 Application 12/725,506 DECISION The rejections of claims 1-20 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation