Ex Parte Hamilton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2014

11839868 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RICK ALLEN HAMILTON II,
BRIAN MARSHALL O'CONNELL, CLIFFORD ALAN PICKOVER, and
KEITH RAYMOND WALKER
____________

Appeal 2012-002156
Application1 11/839,868
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ERIC B. GRIMES, and
ULRIKE W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

JENKS, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims directed to a
method, a processing system, and a computer program for moving an avatar
in a virtual universe. The Examiner has rejected the claims as indefinite and
obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
Real Party in Interest (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2012-002156
Application 11/839,868

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification explains that
A virtual universe depends on a coordinate system to
create anchor points where avatars and objects may be located
for purposes of rendering the avatars and objects to each user’s
computer. Coordinates are two or more units that define a
position in a virtual universe. The coordinates may be a
Cartesian set of points that define planes and altitudes,
however, global coordinates are also known to be used.
Typically, an object has a location referenced by a triplet of
numbers, and optionally a region or other descriptor of a subset
of space within the virtual universe.
(Spec. 1: ¶ 0004.)
Claims 1-20 are on appeal, and can be found in the Claims Appendix
Appeal Brief. Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and reads as
follows:
1. A computer implemented method to move an avatar in a
virtual universe, the method comprising:
rendering a first viewport in a computer display, the first
viewport comprising:
a first tab;
a first coordinate;
a first attitude wherein a first group of at least one object
is rendered based on the first coordinate and the first attitude in
a first region;
rendering a second tab;
receiving a user selection corresponding to the second
tab;
rendering a second viewport comprising a second
coordinate and a second attitude wherein a second group of at
least one object is rendered in a computer display from a second
perspective distinct from a first perspective of the first
viewport, in response to receiving the user selection; and

Appeal 2012-002156
Application 11/839,868

3
registering the avatar as associated with the second
coordinate and second attitude in the virtual universe, wherein
the first tab is a visual indication of movement history.

Grounds of Rejection
The following grounds of rejection are before us for review:
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter.
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mihalcheon2 and further in view of Harvey.3

I. The Issue: Indefiniteness
The Examiner takes the position that it is not clear whether a “first
viewport” and a “second viewport” are displayed on the same computer
display (Ans. 5). The Examiner also questions the number of computer
displays required in a virtual universe (id.). The Examiner finds that the
term “‘perspective distinct’” is not well explained in the Specification (id.).
The Examiner additionally has issue with the term “attitude,” and asks
“[w]hat is the difference between a ‘location’ and an ‘attitude’?” (Id. at 6.)
“If the ‘orientation’ of an avatar is an ‘attitude’, then, what is an
‘orientation’?” (Id.)
Does the preponderance of evidence of record support the Examiner’s
finding that the claims are indefinite?

2 Mihalcheon, US 2009/0064052 A1, published Mar. 5, 2009.
3 Harvey et al., US 6,784,901 B1, issued Aug. 31, 2004.
App
App

Find
dime
of th
attitu
avata
effec
telep
sphe
attitu
inclu
full v
eal 2012-0
lication 11
ings of Fa
FF1. A
nsional re
e avatar.
de. In add
r.” (Spec
FF2. Fi
t of telepo
orted loca
re 109. Th
de of the
FF3. Fi
des full vi
iew or a p
02156
/839,868
ct
ccording t
presentatio
A perspect
ition, a pe
. 11: ¶ 004
gure 1B o
rtation or
tion 111.
e avatar’s
avatar chan
gure 4B, r
ew 453. .
ortion of t
o the Spec
n of objec
ive is the
rspective
3 (emphas
f the Speci
other mov
The avatar
perspectiv
ge.” (Spe
eproduced
. . [T]ab 4
he full vie
4
ification, “
ts in the v
combinatio
may be mo
is added).
fication, r
ement from
now sees
e changes
c. 3: ¶ 000
below, “s
55 also sh
w.” (Spec
a viewpor
irtual wor
n of the a
dified by
)
eproduced
a former
cube 107
because t
9.)
hows wind
ows a min
. 11: ¶ 004
t is the tw
ld from a p
vatar locat
a stance o
below, “s
location 1
nearby ob
he location

ow 450 th
iature ima
4.)
o-
erspective
ion and
f the
hows the
10 to
scuring
and
at
ge of the

App
App

at lea
corre
posit

(Spe
avata
eal 2012-0
lication 11
“The cli
st one coo
spond to t
ions of ob
FF4. Th
An attitu
relation
based on
positive
that form
points m
and a ne
represen
perpendi
height.
a plane.
c. 2: ¶ 000
FF5. Th
r.
Each re
underne
02156
/839,868
ent compu
rdinate an
he locatio
jects in rel
e Specific
de is an
to a plane
a numbe
direction a
analogs
ay corresp
gative dir
ted in a
cular to th
Attitudes
5.)
e Specific
cord with
ath the co
ter [in the
d an attitu
n of the av
ation to th
ation prov
overall or
or a vecto
r of degr
long a co
to a real
ond to a
ection alon
similar
e first axi
may also i
ation prov
in the da
lumn head
5
full view 4
de. The c
atar in the
e avatar.”
ides that
ientation o
r. For exa
ees that an
ordinate ax
world, n
positive di
g the axis
manner,
s. A third
nclude off
ides track
ta may be
ings 501.
53] displa
oordinates
virtual un
(Spec. 10
f an obje
mple, an a
object is
is. For v
orth and
rection al
. East an
along a
axis may
sets of inc
ing the mo
represen
Each row

ys a scene
and attitu
iverse and
: ¶ 0042.)
ct or avat
ttitude ma
offset fro
irtual univ
south com
ong a first
d west ma
second
correspon
lination a
vement hi
ted by a
may inc
based on
de
relative
ar in
y be
m a
erses
pass
axis
y be
axis
d to
bove
story of an
row
lude

Appeal 2012-002156
Application 11/839,868

6
details concerning a viewport. For example, row 511 may
comprise coordinates (300,400), a region corresponding to
“Chient,” and an attitude of 180 degrees in relation to reference
vector in the virtual world. Each row may correspond to a
viewport having a visible aspect displayed in a tab in a window.
(Spec. 12: ¶ 0049.)

Principle of Law
“[T]he definiteness of the language employed must be analyzed—not
in a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the
particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing
the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art.” In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232,
1235 (CCPA 1971). “[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In
re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

Analysis
The Examiner contends that
Because lack of wordings like “concurrent”, “current”, or
“simultaneous” in the specification relating to the viewport
displaying, it is not clear whether the first and second viewports
axe [sic] visually shown to viewers at the same virtual universe
or the same computer display screen. Consequently, the
recitation of “a perspective distinct” is also not clear.
(Ans. 5.)
Appellants take the position that “a computer display” as recited in the
claims would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to mean that
“at least one display is present, and no upper limit to the number of displays
is expressed.” (App. Br. 10.)
Appeal 2012-002156
Application 11/839,868

7
We find that Appellants have the better position. Viewport4 is a term
of art in the area of computer graphics and is understood to be similar to a
view of a window, but usually only part of the document or graphical image,
making up the virtual universe, is visible. The Specification provides that
the viewport is a representation from the aspect of the avatar (FF1). Hence,
the graphics visualized on the screen are those experienced by the avatar at
that particular location in the virtual universe. In addition, the Specification
provides that different viewing perspectives of the avatar can be represented
in a tabular form in the display (FF2). By clicking on the different tabs the
avatar is teleported from one perspective to the another perspective allowing
the user to quickly see much of the virtual world (Spec. 3: ¶ 0010). Thus,
the Specification provides that using these tabs changes the location of the
avatar, and shows the different views on the computer display. There is
nothing in the Specification that would indicate the views represented as the
different tabs cannot be displayed on different computer screens at the same
time. Accordingly, we find nothing indefinite in the usage of “a computer
display” as recited in the claims regardless of the number of displays
contemplated.
We are also not persuaded by the Examiner’s position that the term
“‘perspective distinct’” is not explained (Ans. 5). Here the Specification
provides that the movement of the avatar from one position to a different
position in the virtual universe will change the perspective the avatar has of
the virtual universe at that different position (FFs 2 & 3). Accordingly, the

4 In computer graphics, a view of a document or an image. A viewport is
similar to the view in a window, but usually only part of the document or
graphical image is visible. MICROSOFT DICTIONARY 552 (5th ed. 2002).
Appeal 2012-002156
Application 11/839,868

8
claim when read in light of the Specification provides that the change in the
position of the avatar from a first position to a second position will provide a
new perspective of the scene in the virtual universe that is different and
thereby distinct from the scene at the first location (FF2).
Finally, the Examiner takes the position that the term “attitude” is not
sufficiently defined in the Specification (Ans. 6).
Appellants contend, that “[a]n attitude is an orientation and the need
to render a viewport naturally grows from (or at least requires) that an
attitude or orientation of the avatar be known in order to render the scene to
the computer display.” (App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 3.)
We are unpersuaded by the Examiner’s contentions. The
Specification provides that “[a]n attitude is an overall orientation of an
object or avatar in relation to a plane or a vector.” (FF4.) The Specification
explains that the viewport is from the perspective of the avatar (FF1), thus,
by teleporting the avatar from one position to the next (FFs, 2, 3, 5) not only
is the avatar provided with the coordinates but also with the direction that
avatar is viewing the objects in the virtual universe (FF5). Accordingly,
when read in light of the Specification we find nothing indefinite about the
use of the term “attitude.”
We recognize, but are not persuaded by, the Examiner’s explanation
that an attitude is represented as a degree deviation from some reference
point, and “[w]ithout a reference vector or knowing how to define a
reference vector, how does a system or a user to set or measure the
degrees?” (Ans. 12.) The issue raised by the Examiner would appear to
reflect a concern as to whether the invention is enabled for the full scope of
subject matter encompassed by claims which includes the terminology
App
App

“atti
refer
raise
and i
prese
of th
unde
II.

conc

Find

repre
eal 2012-0
lication 11
tude” beca
ence vecto
d under th
s therefore
We are n
nting a pr
e Specific
r 35 U.S.C

The Issu
Does the
lusion that
ings of Fa
FF6. M
sent an od
Fig. 2, re
02156
/839,868
use the Sp
r. Howev
e enablem
not befor
ot persuad
ima face c
ation. Acc
. § 112, se
e: Obvious
preponde
the claim
ct
ihalcheon
yssey guid
produced
ecification
er, if this i
ent provis
e us.
ed that th
ase that th
ordingly,
cond para
ness over
rance of e
s are obvio
disclosed
ing a user
above, sho
9
does not
s an issue
ions of 35
e Examine
e claims a
we reverse
graph.
Mihalche
vidence of
us?
using a gr
through a
ws such a
provide an
, it would b
U.S.C. § 1
r has met
re indefini
the reject
on and Ha
record sup
aphical use
product c
graphical
explanati
e more pr
12, first p
the burden
te when re
ion of clai
rvey
port the E
r interfac
atalog.

user inter
on of a
operly
aragraph,
of
ad in light
ms 1-20
xaminer’s
e to
face.

Appeal 2012-002156
Application 11/839,868

10
“The odysseys represent a product catalogue, in that a user may
navigate through the odysseys, obtain product information in the form of
sample audio tracks, and graphical and textual information about products
on offer.” (Mihalcheon 2: ¶ 0029.)
Not all planet images within the current odyssey are
represented concurrently in virtual space window 8 in the type
of virtual space illustrated in FIG. 2, which has a pseudo-3D
format. In order to view all of the current audio tracks at once,
and thus access information conveniently about the audio tracks
in the current odyssey, by clicking 2D odyssey button 62 the
user selects a different type of virtual space representing the
current odyssey. . . in a 2D format. The user may always return
to the pseudo 3D format by clicking on 3D odyssey button 60.
(Mihalcheon 3: ¶ 0044; see also Ans. 8.)
FF7. The Examiner finds that in Fig. 2, reproduced above, “the
turning points, such as the changing directions of 34 and 42, axe [sic]
considered attitudes, including a first attitude and a second attitude.”
(Ans. 8.)
FF8. Harvey disclosed
In a 3D multi-user environment, computer users interact with
digital representations of each other, sometimes called
“Avatars,” and objects in a commonly-shared virtual 3D space.
3D multi-user environments are often implemented in client-
server systems, in which the server maintains a virtual 3D space
and the client provides the user interface to that space. . . . In
3D multi-user environments the users typically view the 3D
world through a window, or 3D viewport, displayed on their
computer screen. Conventional systems that combine chat with
a 3D multi-user environment typically display chat messages in
a 2D window that is adjacent to, or overlays, the 3D viewport.
(Harvey, col. 1, ll. 41-61.)
Appeal 2012-002156
Application 11/839,868

11
Principle of Law
“[O]bviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.”
CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Analysis
Mihalcheon disclosed a graphical user interface that represents an
odyssey through a catalog by an avatar (FF6). “As the audio track
progresses from finish to end, the user’s avatar 40 moves forward along the
journey path 38 towards the planet image 32.” (Mihalcheon 3: ¶ 0039; FF6.)
Other users are also depicted in the graphical user interface and are
represented by avatar 42 and 43 (FF6). The Examiner finds that as the
avatar moves through the virtual space and changes directions in the flight
path the attitude of the avatar also changes (FF7). The Examiner
acknowledges that Mihalcheon does not describe the virtual space shown in
the graphical user interface as a virtual universe (see Ans. 8-9, 13).
According to the Examiner Harvey discloses such a virtual universe (Ans. 9;
see also FF8).
Based on the combination Mihalcheon and Harvey the Examiner
concludes that
[I]t would have been obvious to one [of] ordinary skilled in the
art at the time the present invention was made to incorporate the
“moving an avatar in a virtual universe” feature of Harvey into
the On-line Product Catalogue and Ordering System of
Michalcheon [sic] to further enhance the avatar moving and
relocating characteristics of the Michalcheon [sic] system and
make the system more marketable.
(Ans. 9.)
Appeal 2012-002156
Application 11/839,868

12
Appellants contend that the avatar 40 of Mihalcheon fails to teach an
attitude. “However, assuming, arguendo, that avatar 40 did teach an
attitude, the attitude is not of the claimed viewport.” (App. Br. 18; see also
Reply Br. 4.)
We agree with the Appellants that the Examiner had not provided
sufficient evidence or sound technical reasoning to support the conclusion
that it would have been obvious to combine Mihalcheon and Harvey to
arrive at the claimed viewports.
According to the Specification, “a viewport is the two-dimensional
representation of objects in the virtual world from a perspective of the
avatar. A perspective is the combination of the avatar location and
attitude.” (FF1, emphasis added.) Mihalcheon does not provide a graphical
user interface from the perspective of the avatar as required by the
“viewports” recited in the claims (FF6). Specifically, the graphical user
interface of Mihalcheon shows not only the user avatar 40 floating in space
but also shows other avatars 42 and 43. Accordingly, the graphical view
shown in Mihalcheon is not from the perspective of the user’s avatar 40.
The Examiner has not explained how Mihalcheon’s graphical user interface
provides a view from the perspective of the avatar.
The combination of references fail to account for all the claim
limitations, in this case, the viewport limitation from the perspective of the
avatar is missing. See CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d at 1342.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the rejection of claims 1-20
must be reversed because the combination of references does not account for
every claim limitation.

Appeal 2012-002156
Application 11/839,868

13
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Mihalcheon and further in view of Harvey.

REVERSED

cdc

Notice of References Cited

Application/Control No.

11/839,868
Applicant(s)/Patent Under
Reexamination
Rick Allen Hamilton II et al.
Examiner

Ruay Ho
Art Unit

2100

Page 1 of 1

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

* DOCUMENT NO. DATE NAME CLASS SUBCLASS
DOCUMENT
SOURCE **
APS OTHER

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS

* DOCUMENT NO. DATE COUNTRY NAME CLASS SUBCLASS
DOCUMENT
SOURCE **
APS OTHER

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T
NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS

* DOCUMENT (Including Author, Title Date, Source, and Pertinent Pages)
DOCUMENT
SOURCE **
APS OTHER

U

DEFINITION OF “VIEWPOINT” MICROSOFT DICTIONARY 552 (5th ed. 2002).

V

W

X

*A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Section 707.05(a).)
**APS encompasses any electronic search i.e. text, image, and Commercial Databases.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PTO-892 (Rev. 03-98Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No. 16
__ -:;> PUBLISHED BY
Microsoft Press
A Division of Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, Washington 98052-6399
Copyright © 2002 by Microsoft Corporation
AU righ" ,,,,,,,,d, No p,rt of th' conten" of thm book m'y b, "pro
doced
m I"n"nitl
ro
in ony foun
or by any means without the written permission of the publisher.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
_ -::> Microsoft Computer Dictionary.--5th ed .
.-- p. cm.
ISBN 0_7356-1495-4 1. computers--Dictionaries. 2. Microcomputers--Dictionaries.
AQ76.5. M52267 2002 200219714
Printed and bound in the United States of America.
004' .03--dc21
23456789
QWT 7 6 5 4 3 2
Distributed in Canada by H.B. Fenn and Company Ltd.
A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Mi,,",oft P"" book' M' "",I,bI, throogh boo,"'U,,' ",d di",ib",o," woddwid" Fo< forth" inforo'"
don ,bool intern,do
nol
,dido"" contacl Y0O< loc,1 Mi,,",oft Cmpo"lion offIce m contact Micro"'"
p"" Intern,dono! di"ctly " f" (425) 936·7329 Vmit 00' W,b ,ite " www,mic"""ft,co