Ex Parte Goldberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2017

12427693 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2017)

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.
12/427,693 04/21/2009 David Goldberg PARC-20080633-US-NP 7406
35699 7590
PVF - PARC
c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP
2820 FIFTH STREET
DAVIS, CA 95618-7759
EXAMINER
JIANG, HAIMEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2145
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2017 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):
sy_incoming @parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID GOLDBERG and NICOLAS B. DUCHENEAUT
Appeal 2015-002834
Application 12/427,693
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, AMBER L. HAGY, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA, II, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-002834
Application 12/427,693
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1—3, 5—11, and 13—22, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Illustrative Claim
1. A method for multiple users to collaboratively interact with
content using a networked group of electronic devices, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, first signals corresponding
to current user actions of a first user of a first electronic device in the
group of electronic devices;
receiving second signals corresponding to current user actions
of a second user of a second electronic device in the group of
electronic devices, wherein the current user actions of the first and
second users correspond to a collaborative interaction with the content
by the first and second users via the group of electronic devices;
determining, based on the second signals, a time duration that
the second user spent viewing a content item; and
in response to the determined time duration being greater than
or equal to a predetermined time threshold, providing, to the first user,
a display environment that displays a visual representation of the
second user and the content item in a central segment of a display
window.
Prior Art
Spackova US 4,539,585 Sept. 3, 1985
Feld US 2001/0026272 A1 Oct. 4, 2001
Balter US 6,901,379 B1 May 31, 2005
Omino US 2006/0054689 A1 Mar. 16, 2006
Aritsuka US 2007/0262863 A1 Nov. 15,2007
Konkle US 2009/0186700 A1 July 23, 2009
Wilson US 2010/0066850 A1 Mar. 18,2010
Pryor US 2010/0190610 A1 July 29, 2010
2
Appeal 2015-002834
Application 12/427,693
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1—3, 5—10, 15, 19, 20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Konkle, Aritsuka, and Wilson.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Konkle, Aritsuka, Wilson, and Pryor.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Konkle, Aritsuka, Wilson, and Balter.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Konkle, Aritsuka, Wilson, and Spackova.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Konkle, Aritsuka, Wilson, and Field.
Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Konkle, Aritsuka, Wilson, and Omino.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “determining, based on the second signals, a time
duration that the second user spent viewing a content item.” The Examiner
finds Aritsuka discloses this limitation in describing that when a shopping
visitor in a store stays near a merchandise article for a specific time, a node
transmits an event indicating an interest in the article. Ans. 3 (citing
Aritsuka 270—272). Appellants contend that the sensors in Aritsuka
cannot identify which article is being viewed by a user in a virtual
environment. Br. 17. Appellants also contend that determining whether a
user’s physical location remains unchanged for a prolonged period is not the
same as determining the time a user views a content item. Br. 19.
3
Appeal 2015-002834
Application 12/427,693
However, Appellants have not provided a definition of determining
the time duration that the user spent viewing the item that excludes
measuring the amount of time that the user stands next to the time. We
agree with the Examiner that Paragraphs 270-272 of Aritsuka teach, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that a person in a store who stands next to an
item for a prolonged period of time has an interest in the item, and, is more
likely than not, viewing the item during that period.
Claim 1 also recites “in response to the determined time duration
being greater than or equal to a predetermined time threshold, providing, to
the first user, a display environment that displays a visual representation of
the second user and the content item in a central segment of a display
window.” The Examiner finds Wilson discloses this limitation in describing
a predetermined period of time delay before a captured image can be read
out of a camera to provide an image. Final Act. 3. Even if we accept the
Examiner’s finding as correct, the Examiner has not explained how Wilson
teaches displaying a visual representation of the user and the content item as
required by claim 1.
The Examiner has also not shown that Konkle or Aritsuka teaches this
limitation. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown that
the combination of Konkle, Aritsuka, and Wilson teaches “in response to the
determined time duration being greater than or equal to a predetermined time
threshold, providing, to the first user, a display environment that displays a
visual representation of the second user and the content item in a central
segment of a display window.”
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 2, 3, 5—11, and 13—22 either contain or depend from a claim
4
Appeal 2015-002834
Application 12/427,693
containing a limitation similar to that recited in claim 1 for which the
rejection fails.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—3, 5—11, and 13—22 are reversed.
REVERSED
5