Ex Parte Garbow et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 30, 2013

11297313 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte ZACHARY ADAM GARBOW, CANDACE TRIELLE
PEDERSON, and MICHAEL ANTHONY NELSON JR.
_____________

Appeal 2010-005975
Application 11/297,313
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before, ERIC S. FRAHM, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005975
Application 11/297,313

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method, program product, service, and
apparatus for maintaining a plurality of rulesets related to likeness data
wherein a brokering service controls the incorporation of likeness data based
upon the plurality of rulesets. Spec. 3. Claim 1 is representative of the
invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method of controlling the incorporation of likeness
data for an individual into a media presentation, the method
comprising:
maintaining a broker service that manages and distributes
a plurality of rulesets respectively associated with a plurality of
individuals, wherein each of the plurality of rulesets restricts
incorporation of likeness data associated with the associated
individual into media presentations, and wherein each of the
plurality of rulesets includes at least one rule configured to
define a condition under which the likeness data for the
associated individual may or may not be incorporated into a
media presentation; and
receiving a request for the ruleset for a selected
individual with the broker service and in response thereto using
the broker service to initiate communication of the ruleset to a
requesting entity.

REFERENCES
Brush, II US 5,884,029 Mar. 16, 1999

Sitrick US 2003/0190954 A1 Oct. 9, 2003

Appeal 2010-005975
Application 11/297,313

3
Park US 2007/0063999 A1 Mar. 22, 2007
(filed Sep. 22, 2005)

Wells US 7,208,669 B2 Apr. 24, 2007
(filed Aug. 25, 2004)

Funge US 2007/0260567 A1 Nov. 8, 2007
(filed July 6, 2004)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-12, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Brush and Sitrick.1 Ans. 3-7.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Brush, Sitrick, Funge. Ans. 7-8.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Brush, Sitrick, and Wells. Ans. 8-9.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Brush, Sitrick, Wells, and Park. Ans.
9-10.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Brush and
Sitrick teaches or suggests a plurality of rulesets that restrict incorporation of
likeness data associated with the associated individual into media
presentations, as required by independent claims 1 and 17-19?2

1 The Examiner inadvertently left out claims 4 and 6-12 from the statement
of rejection but included them in the body of the rejection. We have
included the claims in the statement of the rejection here.
2 Appellants make additional arguments with respect to claims 2-22. App.
Br. 15-20. We will not address the additional arguments as this issue is
dispositive of the Appeal.
Appeal 2010-005975
Application 11/297,313

4
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “wherein each of the plurality of rulesets restricts
incorporation of likeness data associated with the associated individual into
media presentations.” Independent claims 17-19 contain similar limitations.
Claims 2-16 and 20-22 depend upon claims 1 and 19. The Examiner finds
that Brush teaches this limitation since Brush teaches restricting how an
avatar interacts with objects in certain scenarios. Ans. 11. We disagree. As
correctly indicated by Appellants, Brush teaches avatar artificial
intelligence, not rules that restrict likeness data based upon the media
presentation. App. Br. 10. Additionally, Appellants contend that the
artificial intelligence only controls how the avatars interact with one another.
App. Br. 10. In other words, even if we are to assume that the avatar’s
artificial intelligence is equivalent to the avatar’s personality, and thus
arguably “likeness data,” the avatar’s artificial intelligence never changes
based on the media presentation. Thus, the Examiner has not provided
sufficient evidence nor do we find that the references teach or suggest
restricting the incorporation of likeness data based on the media
presentation. As a result, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-22.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Brush and
Sitrick teaches or suggests a plurality of rulesets that restrict incorporation of
likeness data associated with the associated individual into media
presentations, as required by independent claims 1 and 17-19.

Appeal 2010-005975
Application 11/297,313

5
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-22 is reversed.
REVERSED

msc