Ex Parte Harrison et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 201611789326 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 11/789,326 04/23/2007 Phil Harrison SONYP068 7927 16051 7590 MPG, LLP and SONY 710 Lakeway Drive, Suite 200 Sunnyvale, CA 94085 12/22/2016 EXAMINER THERIAULT, STEVEN B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2179 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2016 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): sony docket @ mpiplaw. com mpdocket @ mpiplaw .com scea_patent_docket@Playstation.Sony.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PHIL HARRISON and GARY M. ZALEWSKI Appeal 2016-001781 Application 11/789,3261 Technology Center 2100 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7-17, 20-22, and 24-29, which are all the claims pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real parties in interest are Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. and Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited. App. Br. 3. 2 Claims 2, 5, 6, 18, 19, and 23 have been canceled. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2016-001781 Application 11/789,326 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ application relates to a user playing a video game by controlling an avatar in a virtual world environment. Spec. 17. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A method, implemented by a computer program when executed by a computing device, for enabling interactive control and monitoring of avatars in a computer generated virtual world environment, comprising: generating the virtual world environment; presenting to a real-world user an avatar and a viewable object within the virtual world environment; detecting movement of the avatar within the virtual world environment, the movement of the avatar being controlled by the real-world user; monitoring a field of view of the avatar; determining when the field of view is toward the viewable object; detecting, by the computer program, physical manifestations from the real-world user regarding user approval or disapproval of the viewable object when the field of view of the avatar is determined toward the viewable object, the physical manifestations including one or more of sound of the real-world user, or a gesture of the real-world user, or body language of the real-world user; determining, by the computer program, whether the detected physical manifestations from the real-world user indicate approval or disapproval by the real-world user of the viewable object; and storing the determination of approval or disapproval by the real-world user. 2 Appeal 2016-001781 Application 11/789,326 The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1,3,4, 7, 22, 24, and 27-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gottfried (US 2005/0251553 Al; Nov. 10, 2005), Dones (US 2007/0291034 Al; Dec. 20, 2007), and Ikeda (US 2001/0021920 Al; Sept. 13,2001). Final Act. 3-11. Claims 8-17, 20, 21, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gottfried, Dones, Ikeda, and de Lemos (US 2007/0265507 Al; Nov. 15, 2007). Final Act. 11-21. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional points. Claim 1 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Ikeda teaches “physical manifestations from the real-world user regarding user approval or disapproval of the viewable object,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8-12. In particular, Appellants argue Ikeda merely teaches physical manifestations of the avatar, not physical manifestations of the real-world user. App. Br. 9. Appellants further argue Ikeda fails to teach physical manifestations comprising “a gesture of the real-world user” because detecting a “gesture” 3 Appeal 2016-001781 Application 11/789,326 requires detecting a particular motion of the user, such as by analyzing video or images of a user. Reply Br. 12. Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Ikeda teaches a virtual space that allows users to vote on an object in their field of view to indicate approval or disapproval. Ans. 9 (citing Ikea Tflf 15—49). Ikeda teaches a real-world user controls the movements of the avatar, including indications of approval of disapproval. Ans. 23. We agree with the Examiner that the avatar’s movements indicating approval or disapproval are a reflection of “physical manifestations from the real-world user regarding user approval or disapproval of the viewable object,” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 23. Appellants’ interpretation of “gesture” narrows the term to require detecting a particular motion of the user, such as by analyzing video or images of a user. See Reply Br. 12. However, Appellants’Specification does not define “gesture,” nor have Appellants identified persuasive evidence in the record that “gesture” should be defined more narrowly than its ordinary meaning. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Ikeda’s teachings that the real-world user controls the movements of the avatar, including indications of approval or disapproval, using an input device such as a controller teaches or suggests that the real-world user performs a “gesture” as claimed. Ans. 23. On this record, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appellants argue the patentability of claims 3, 4, 7, 22, and 24-29 for the same reasons as claim 1. App. Br. 12-13. We, therefore, also sustain the rejections of claims 3, 4, 7, 22, and 24-29. 4 Appeal 2016-001781 Application 11/789,326 Claim 8 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Dones teaches “monitoring a field of view of the animated user.” App. Br. 13-14. In particular, Appellants argue the Examiner “appears to assume that everything on the display is the field of view of the avatar. However, in a virtual environment where the avatar is moving around, the avatar may be looking at a certain part of the virtual world, not the whole virtual world.” Id. Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Gottfried teaches a virtual world that includes advertisements, such as those displayed on a virtual wall. Ans. 32. The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Dones teaches an animated user, or avatar, depicted in a virtual world. Id. (citing Dones 149). Dones teaches monitoring where the animated user is looking by teaching the user interface moves with the avatar’s changing view. Ans. 32-33 (citing || 35, 45, 51, Fig. 6). Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence to rebut the Examiner’s findings. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Dones teaches the disputed “monitoring” limitation. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 8. Appellants argue the patentability of claims 9-17, 20, 21, 25, and 26 for the same reasons as claim 8. See App. Br. 15. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejections of claims 9-17, 20, 21, 25, and 26. 5 Appeal 2016-001781 Application 11/789,326 DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1,3,4, 7-17, 20-22, and 24-29. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation