Ex Parte Jania et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2015

11967662 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FRANK L. JANIA and RUTHIE D. LYLE
____________

Appeal 2012-006837
1

Application 11/967,662
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, ULRIKE W. JENKS, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

JENKS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims directed to
managing an avatar in a virtual world. The Examiner rejects the claims as
obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1
Appellants state that the Real Party in Interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2012-006837
Application 11/967,662

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1–15 are on appeal, and can be found in the Claims Appendix
of the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 9–13). Claim 1 is representative of the claims
on appeal, and reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A method for deploying and managing an avatar silhouette
in a location in a virtual world, the method comprising:
creating and inserting a silhouette avatar into one
location of a virtual world in correspondence with a primary
avatar in a different location in the virtual world;
rendering the silhouette avatar recognizable by an avatar
in the one location and prohibiting independent movements by
the silhouette avatar; and,
passing a communication directed from the avatar in the
one location to the silhouette avatar in the one location along to
the primary avatar in the different location.
The other independent claims 7 and 10, similarly recite prohibiting
independent movements by the silhouette avatar. (See App. Br. 5–6.)
The Examiner has rejected claims 1–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhang
2
in view of Shuster.
3

The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the preponderance of
evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination
of Zhang and Shuster renders the limitation of “prohibiting independent
movements by the silhouette avatar” obvious.
Analysis
The Examiner finds, and Appellants do not contest, that Zhang
teaches managing a silhouette avatar in a virtual world (Ans. 5; App. Br. 5–
7). The Examiner acknowledges that Zhang does not teach “prohibiting

2
Xiaolong Zhang & George W. Furnas, Social Interactions in Multiscale
CVEs, CVE'02, 30–38 (2002).
3
Gary Stephen Shuster, US 2009/0150418 A1, June 11, 2009.
Appeal 2012-006837
Application 11/967,662

3
independent movements by the silhouette avatar” (Ans. 6). The Examiner
looks to Shuster for supplying the teaching of limiting movement by the
silhouette. (Id.) The Examiner concludes that “it would have been obvious
at the time the invention was made . . . [to] modif[y] the silhouette taught by
Zhang, to have included the restricted movements taught by Shuster, to have
achieved a system and method of providing an avatar silhouette access into
certain areas of the virtual reality environment.” (Id.)
Appellants contend that “independent movement in Shuster of the
‘guest avatar’ is permitted and not prohibited” as required by the claim
language. (App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3, 5.) Indeed, Appellants contend
that the “Examiner’s admission that independent movements somewhere in
the virtual world of Shuster is enough to demonstrate that Shuster fails to
teach the claimed ‘prohibiting independent movements by the silhouette
avatar’”. (App. Br. 7–8.)
We are not persuaded. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions concerning the scope and content of the prior art as our own.
(Ans. 5–17.) Shuster discloses a guest management system for sharing a
virtual reality universe with a paying member. Shuster, however, recognizes
that when inviting guests into this universe,
[T]here exists the potential for abuse in having two users share
a single membership (i.e., a paying or registered member and a
guest), one or more limitations may be placed upon the guest’s
access into the VRU environment. For example, guest avatars
may be associated with member avatars such that the guest
avatar’s movement is limited by the location of the member
avatar in the VRU environment. This may be accomplished by,
for example, setting a perimeter defining an area about the
member avatar and requiring the guest avatar to stay within the
defined area. Alternatively, the guest avatar may be permitted
Appeal 2012-006837
Application 11/967,662

4
freedom of movement in the direction of a direct path to the
member avatar. The freedom of movement may also be a
defined area in angular relation with respect to the direct path
(i.e., 30 degrees of the direct path of the member avatar).
(Shuster 1: ¶ 10.)
The Examiner finds that Shuster disclosed limiting the movement of
an avatar. (Ans. 6, 15–16.) According to the Examiner, “Shuster teaches
that the guest avatar’s movement is limited and restricted, as the movement
is controlled by the member avatar’s location.” (Ans. 15; see also Ans. 16;
see, e.g., Shuster ¶ 25 (“for example, as the member avatar moves in the
VRU, the guest avatar may be required to move in the same direction”).)
Once you have been taught that movement of an avatar can be restricted in
the virtual universe, limiting the movement to zero is an obvious variation of
such a restriction. “If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid
under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007).
Specifically, the Examiner concludes that
[T]he guest avatar [of Shuster] is restricted or prohibited which
is equivalent to limiting/prohibiting independent movements of
the avatar in the restricted area. . . . Shuster does mention
freedom of movement by the guest avatar, it is merely
mentioned as an alternative embodiment of the invention taught
by Shuster; meaning that it not the only method of movement
by the guest avatar
(Ans. 16.) We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the movement
restriction of the avatar as taught by Shuster in combination of Zhang
renders the claims obvious.
We are not persuaded by Appellants contention that “[t]here is no
teaching in Shuster which prohibits the ‘guest avatar’ from moving
independently from any other avatar.” (Reply Br. 5.) “[T]he guest avatar
Appeal 2012-006837
Application 11/967,662

5
[of Shuster] is restricted or prohibited which is equivalent to
limiting/prohibiting independent movements of the avatar in the restricted
area.” (Ans. 16.) Because Shuster disclosed restricting the movement of an
avatar (see Ans. 6, citing Shuster ¶¶ abstract, 9–10, 14–16, and 25), we agree
with the Examiner’s position that placing movement restrictions onto a guest
encompasses limiting independent movements. Here, restricting the
movement to zero is an obvious variation of the restrictions taught by
Shuster, and results in no movement by the guest including independent
movements. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the
combination of Zhang and Shuster render claim 1 obvious.
We affirm the obviousness rejection of claim 1. Appellants do not
separately argue claims 2–15. (App. Br. 5.) Therefore, these claims fall
with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1).

SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Zhang and Shuster.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc