Ex Parte Riley

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 4, 2016

12135832 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/135,832 06/09/2008
94466 7590 02/08/2016
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (Disney)
on behalf of Disney Enterprises, Inc.
12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92130-2006
Sean Riley
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
018322-0367744 4471
EXAMINER
PHANTANA ANG KOOL, DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2016 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):
docketing@sheppardmullin.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEAN RILEY
Appeal2014-002486 1
Application 12/135,832
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-3, and 5-21. Claim 4 has been
canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appellant's Invention
Appellant's invention is directed to a method and system for
associating virtual spaces to physical analogues located in the real world
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Disney Enterprises, Inc.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-002486
Application 12/135,832
thereby enabling client computing platforms to contemporaneously reflect in
the virtual spaces current activities of associated users in corresponding real
world physical analogues. Spec. if 2, Fig. 1.
Representative Claim
Independent claims 1 and 8 are representative, and read as follows:
1. A server configured to provide access to virtual spaces based on
current location in the real world, the server comprising:
one or more processors configured to execute computer program
modules, the computer program modules comprising:
a request module configured to receive requests from client
computing platforms for access to virtual spaces;
a location module configured to obtain, in real time or near real time,
a current location in the real world of a first client computing platform
associated with a first user;
a space correlation module configured to, responsive to reception of a
request from the first client computing platform for virtual space access,
correlate the current location in the real world of the first client computing
platform with one of a plurality of virtual spaces by comparing the current
real world location of the first client computing platform with the real world
locations of physical analogues that are associated with the different virtual
spaces, wherein the virtual spaces are separate simulated spaces, and
2
Appeal2014-002486
Application 12/135,832
wherein the virtual spaces comprise a first virtual space and a second virtual
space; and
a server access module configured to provide access for the first client
computing platform to the virtual space with which the current location of
the first client computing platform has been correlated such that, responsive
to the current location of the first client computing platform being correlated
with the first virtual space, access to the first virtual space is provided for the
first client computing platform by facilitating communication between the
first client computing platform and a space server
executing an instance of the first virtual space, wherein such
communication enables an avatar associated with the first client computing
platform to interact in the instance of the first client computing platform to
interact in the instance of the first virtual space with avatars being controlled
by other client computing platforms.
8. A sys~em configured to enable access to a virtual space, the
system compnsmg:
one or more processors configured to execute computer program
modules, the computer program modules comprising:
a request receipt module configured to receive a request from
a client computing platform for access to a virtual space, wherein a
virtual space is a simulated physical space that has a topography,
expresses real-time interaction by the one or more users, and includes one
3
Appeal2014-002486
Application 12/135,832
or more objects positioned within the topography that are capable of
experiencing locomotion within the topography;
a client location module configured to obtain a current
physical location of the client computing platform in the real world;
a space correlation module configured to correlate the client
computing platform with one of a plurality of virtual spaces, wherein the
virtual spaces correspond to separate physical analogues in the real world
such that the individual virtual spaces include therein virtual objects
associated with the physical analogues to which the individual virtual spaces
correspond, and wherein the correlation of the client computing platform
with one of the plurality of virtual spaces is based on the current physical
location of the client computing platform in relation to the physical locations
of the physical analogues; and
a server access module configured to generate a network
location at which the client computing platform will be able to access a
server hosting an instance of the virtual space correlated with the client
computing platform by the space correlation module to receive view
information from the server over a network such that the generated network
location is dependent upon the correlated virtual space, wherein accessing
the server at the network location enables the client computing platform to
receive view information from the server over the network that describes a
view of the hosted instance of the virtual space to be displayed to a user by
the client computing platform.
4
Appeal2014-002486
Application 12/135,832
Pechatnikov et al.
Esenther
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 2005/0033511 Al
US 2009/0040186 Al
Rejection on Appeal
Feb. 10,2005
Feb. 12, 2009
Appellant requests review of the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3,
and 5-21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Pechatnikov and Esenther.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant's arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 7-18, and the Reply Brief, pages 4--8.2
Claims 1-3, and 5-7
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues the proposed
combination of Pechatnikov and Esenther does not render claim 1
unpatentable. App. Br. 7-12. In particular, Appellant argues that the
proposed combination of references does not teach an avatar under the
control of a user interacting in a virtual space, with avatars being controlled
by other client computing platforms. Id. at 11. According to Appellant, the
Examiner erred in finding Pechatnikov' s disclosure of points of interest
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 24, 2013), the Reply Brief (filed January
17, 2013) and the Answer (mailed November 22, 2013) for their respective
details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
5
Appeal2014-002486
Application 12/135,832
(POis) in buildings and maps stored on a server computer, teaches avatars
being controlled by other client computing platforms. Id. (citing
Pechatnikov if 103), Reply Br. 5 (citing Pechatnikov iii! 112-13). We agree
with Appellant.
As correctly argued by Appellant, and undisputed by the Examiner,
avatars are graphical representations of users. Ans. 10-11. Therefore, we
agree with Appellant that because the POis in maps and buildings disclosed
in Pechatnikov do not represent users, they do not teach avatars. App.
Br. 11. We further agree with Appellant that because the cited POis are
stored on a server computing device, as opposed to a client computing
device, the disclosed POis are not controlled by other client computing
platforms. Id. Thus, we agree with Appellant the Examiner has not shown
the other avatars being controlled by other client computing platforms.
Because Appellant has shown at least one reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim, we need not reach Appellant's other arguments.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as dependent
claims 2, 3, and 5-7, which also recite the disputed limitations.
Claims 8-21
Appellant argues the combination of Pechatnikov and Esenther does
not teach or suggest selecting a virtual space from a plurality of virtual
spaces to thereby generate a specific network location at which the selected
virtual space can be accessed based on the real world location of a user
requesting access. App. Br. 12. According to Appellant, although Esenther
discloses a user touching different locations on a touchscreen display of a
6
Appeal2014-002486
Application 12/135,832
client computing device to present different views of a map hosted at a
server, Esenther does not teach the network locations at which the client
request information from the server application. Id. at 15 (citing Esenther
i-fi-f 12, 14, 22). Further, Appellant argues Pechatnikov's disclosure of
pushing updated information to a user to transmit updated information to a
GPS does not cure the noted deficiencies because the network address does
not indicate where the user can obtain the updated information. Id. at 16
(citing Pechatnikov i-fi-f 107, 109).
These arguments are not persuasive. Esenther' s disclosure of the user
touching a location on the display of a client computing device to thereby
cause the server to display a different view of an image, teaches or suggests
the client computing device pulling requested view information from the
server (i.e., at a specified network location). Esenther i-fi-121-24. Further,
Pichatnikov's disclosure of the client computer polling a list of available
servers (listed by IP address) to determine the address or network location of
the fastest server for a particular request (Pichanitkov i1 209) would
complement Esenther's teaching, thereby specifically identifying the
network location associated a server containing requested information.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Esenther
and Pichatnikov teaches the disputed limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claims 9-21, Appellant reiterates substantially the same
arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 8, or does
not provide separate patentability arguments; therefore, claims 9-21 fall
with claim 8 for the foregoing reasons. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
7
Appeal2014-002486
Application 12/135,832
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 8-21, but reverse the
rejection of claims 1-3, and 5-7, as set forth above.
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-IN-PART
8