Ex Parte Jones et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2015

11971666 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANGELA RICHARDS JONES, FUYI LI,
RUTHIE D. LYLE, VANDANA MALLEMPATI, and
PAMELA A. NESBITT
____________________

Appeal 2012-007945
Application 11/971,666
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ULRIKE W. JENKS, SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, and
CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAMHOLZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the decision of the
Examiner to reject claims 1–5, 7–11, 13–15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) for anticipation by Saito (US 2004/0039583 A1, pub. Feb. 26,
2004). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2012-007945
Application 11/971,666

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter is directed to a system and method for
attending a recorded event in a metaverse application. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer program product comprising a non-
transitory computer useable storage medium to store a
computer readable program that, when executed on a computer,
causes the computer to perform operations comprising:
record an event environment of a metaverse application,
wherein the recorded event environment comprises a virtual
object in a context of a multidimensional virtual scene;
receive a request from a user for playback of the recorded
event environment;
display the playback of the recorded event environment
to allow the user to observe the recorded event environment;
and
facilitate an interaction between at least two avatars
within the recorded environment, wherein the interaction occurs
during the playback of the recorded event environment.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejected claims 1–5, 7–11, 13–15, 17, 18, and 20 for
anticipation by Saito. Ans. 4.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has failed to show that
Saito discloses the facilitation of an interaction between two avatars within,
and during playback of, a recorded event environment. See App. Br. 7–9.
Saito discloses that a replay post may be played in an information space for
an avatar (¶ 121), but Saito does not disclose that the avatar is within that
replay post or that an interaction with another avatar is facilitated within the
replay post during playback. The Examiner cites Fig. 16 as disclosing this
feature and refers to element 156 as a “recorded network event environment”
Appeal 2012-007945
Application 11/971,666

3
(Ans. 6) but provides no explanation to substantiate these assertions. The
Examiner also asserts that elements 62a and 153 are “recorded
environment[s]” and that paragraphs 47–49 describe a data file which allows
presentation of a recorded environment to avatars for an interaction
(Ans. 18) but again provides no explanation. We do not discern from our
review of Saito any disclosure that avatars interact within, and during
payback of, a recorded event environment. All of the rejected claims have
this limitation; accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of all
claims.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5,
7–11, 13–15, 17, 18, and 20 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

cdc