Ex Parte Sherinian

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 9, 2016

11875931 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111875,931 10/21/2007
66512 7590 11/14/2016
The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC
1755 Park Street
Suite# 200
Naperville, IL 60563
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Konrad V. Sherinian
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.
0950-0001 5318
EXAMINER
FABBRI, ANTHONY E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2448
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/14/2016 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):
ksherinian@hotmail.com
ebi@sherinianlaw.net
pto@sherinianlaw.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KONRAD V. SHERINIAN
Appeal2015-006708
Application 11/875,931
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 19--3 7, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Technology
The application relates to "predicting virtual world content required
by a virtual world user," such as in a "Massively Multiplayer Online Role
Playing Game (MMORPG)." Spec. i-fi-115, 4.
Figure 2 of the present application is reproduced below.
Appeal2015-006708
Application 11/875,931
STRUCTURE
216
MAXIMUM
PERCEPTION
208
HEIGHT
TERRAIN
OBJECT
ACTORS
Al OBJECTS
SOUNDS
[]"'
STRUCTURE2
:: 217
212
CONTENT
TRAMS MISSION
RADIUS
220
MAXIMUM
PERCEPT!ON
VELOCITY
224
FACING
-- AVATAR
204
MOVEABLE OBJECTS
EQUIPABLE OBJECTS
"FIG. 2 visually depicts .... an avatar 204 located at the center.
Using virtual sight, ... the avatar has a maximum perception radius 208. In
addition, a geometrical shape 212 ... is projected from the avatar in the
direction that the avatar is looking." Spec. i-f 33. The avatar can only see
objects in the direction it is facing and even then can only see as far as the
maximum perception radius 208. However, if the avatar turns or moves
forward, it will see different things. The system thus attempts to "determine
what content the client computer is most likely to require next" and
"predictively transfer[]" such content to the client. Id. i-f 27; see also i-f 37.
Thus, in Figure 2, "[a]ll virtual world content unknown to the avatar's
[computer] which is within either the avatar's maximum perception radius
208 or the boundaries of the geometrical shape 212 are transmitted to the
avatar's [computer]." Id. i-f 33.
2
Appeal2015-006708
Application 11/875,931
Representative Claim
Claim 19 is representative and reproduced below with the limitations
at issue emphasized:
19. A method for transmitting virtual world content to at least
one client computer from one or more servers maintaining a
virtual world, the at least one client computer maintaining a
cache of virtual world content, the method comprising the steps
of:
i) defining a position of an avatar associated with a
particular client computer within said virtual world at a particular
time, said avatar having one or more virtual senses including
virtual sight;
ii) defining a first radius about said position
encompassing a first set of virtual world content, said first radius
being at least equal to a maximum visual perception radius of
said avatar;
iii) projecting a geometrical shape extending a distance
from said position and defining a second set of said virtual world
content, said geometrical shape having three dimensions, at least
some of said content defined by said geometrical shape being
predicted to be 1Alithin said first radius at a fitture time and not
being within said first radius at said particular time; and
iv) queueing content that is not within the content cache of
said particular client computer and that is within said first set of
virtual world content or said second set of virtual world content;
v) transmitting the queued content from the at least one
server to the particular client computer.
Rejections
Claims 19--22, 24--32, and 34--37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Rasinski et al. (US 5,787,333; July 28, 1998) and
Shaw et al. (US 6,640,284 Bl; Oct. 28, 2003). Final Act. 5.
Claims 23 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Rasinski, Shaw, and the Hero Quest Game System
manual ("Hero Quest"). Final Act. 13.
3
Appeal2015-006708
Application 11/875,931
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Rasinski teaches or suggests
"defining a first radius about said position encompassing a first set of virtual
world content, said first radius being at least equal to a maximum visual
perception radius of said avatar" and "projecting a geometrical shape
extending a distance from said position and defining a second set of said
virtual world content, said geometrical shape having three dimensions, at
least some of said content defined by said geometrical shape being predicted
to be within said first radius at a future time and not being within said first
radius at said particular time," as recited in claim 19?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Rasinski
and Shaw teaches or suggests "queueing content that is not within the
content cache of said particular client computer and that is within said first
set of virtual world content or said second set of virtual world content" and
"transmitting the queued content from the at least one server to the particular
client computer," as recited in claim 19?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding Rasinski teaches or suggests
"said virtual world content includes height map data and structure data," as
recited in claim 20?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Rasinski
and Shaw teaches or suggests "said virtual world content includes a plurality
of data types selected from the group consisting of structure data, height map
data, object data, texture data, audio data, object data, actor data, and
artificial intelligence data," as recited in claim 21?
5. Did the Examiner err in finding Shaw teaches or suggests "said
step of queueing comprises queueing less than all structure data within said
4
Appeal2015-006708
Application 11/875,931
first set of virtual world content and said second set of virtual world
content," as recited in claim 22?
6. Did the Examiner err in finding Shaw teaches or suggests a
"story line," as recited in claim 28?
THE PRIOR ART: RASINSKI
Rasinski teaches aircraft training for multiple players where "threats
are simulated by the central controller and transmitted to each player
aircraft." Rasinski Abstract. "The technology ... is a realistic training
platform because it can utilize multiple aircraft and contains terrain data for
'line of sight' targeting strategies for low flyers." Id. at 2:33-36.
Figure 1 of Rasinski is reproduced below.
"FIG. 1 is [a] pictorial depiction of a training scenario" that includes
"control aircraft 10"; "player aircraft 12, 14, 16 and 18"; threats 28 and 30;
and terrain data. Rasinski 6:33--42. In Figure 1, "player aircraft 12 would
be unable to 'see' threat 28 until reaching a line of site over the simulated
terrain data." Id. at 6:42--45.
5
Appeal2015-006708
Application 11/875,931
Because of "delay times for transmission and receipt of data,"
Rasinski teaches how to "predict the [future] position of the player aircraft."
Rasinski 11 :55-12:3. That predicted position is used "to ascertain visible
threats 160 to each player aircraft" based on the predicted "'line of sight' for
each player." Id. at 12:3-10. An "updated threat list" is then prepared for
"transmission ... to each player aircraft." Id. 12:26-28.
ANALYSIS
We have only considered the arguments Appellant actually raised in
the briefs. Arguments that Appellant could have made but chose not to are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
Claim 19
A) "defining a first radius ... "
Independent claim 19 recites "defining a first radius about said
position encompassing a first set of virtual world content, said first radius
being at least equal to a maximum visual perception radius of said avatar."
For this limitation, the Examiner relies on Rasinski teaching a "line of
sight" from an aircraft. Ans. 8-9. The Examiner interprets "perception
radius" as "pertaining to anything currently within the perception of the
player, which may include line-of-sight, but may not include objects that are
hidden and thus not within the player's perception." Ans. 3.
Appellant contends "line of sight" is not the claimed radius because
"Figure 2 clearly depicts [the perception radius] as including content behind
the user's avatar, and therefore, opposite the facing vector." Reply Br. 3;
App. Br. 15-16. Instead, "it would be more appropriate to define
'perception radius' as 'a fixed radius about a player that encompasses
6
Appeal2015-006708
Application 11/875,931
anything that a player's avatar could sense using any of the senses
encompassed by the game."' Reply Br. 3.
We agree with Appellant that a circle centered at the avatar and
having a radius equal to the perception radius could encompass objects not
currently perceived by the avatar, such as objects behind the avatar. Spec.
FIG. 2. However, we agree with the Examiner that the "first radius" can be
equal to the "perception radius." Ans. 8. We also are not persuaded by
Appellant's argument regarding Rasinski's line of sight. At any given time,
an aircraft has a fixed distance it can see in the absence of any obstructions
(i.e., a maximum visual perception radius). Appellant's argument that "all
threat data within the perception radius would need to be transferred to meet
this claim element" (Reply Br. 4) is neither commensurate with claim 19 as
written nor consistent with dependent claim 22, which instead queues for
transfer "less than all structure data." Whether Rasinski ultimately transmits
"less than all" content within the "maximum visual perception radius" of
Rasinski's aircraft (e.g., because certain threats within the circle cannot be
seen due to terrain) is irrelevant to whether Rasinski's line of sight has "a
maximum visual perception radius." Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
Rasinski teaches or suggests this limitation.
B) "projecting a geometrical shape . .. "
Claim 19 recites "projecting a geometrical shape extending a distance
from said position and defining a second set of said virtual world content,
said geometrical shape having three dimensions, at least some of said
content defined by said geometrical shape being predicted to be within said
first radius at a future time and not being within said first radius at said
particular time."
7
Appeal2015-006708
Application 11/875,931
We agree with the Examiner that "Rasinski uses the current
momentum of the players' aircraft to predict a next location of the aircraft"
and "calculates all threats that would be visible from the new position that
were not visible from the old position." Ans. 10 (citing Rasinski 11 :55-
12: 12). We are not persuaded by Appellant's conclusory arguments, such as
that the shape cannot be based on a predicted perception radius or that an
aircraft's line of sight is "two-dimensional." Reply Br. 4--5; App. Br. 16-17.
C) "queueing content . .. " & "transmitting the queued content . .. "
Claim 19 recites "queueing content that is not within the content
cache of said particular client computer and that is within said first set of
virtual world content or said second set of virtual world content" and
"transmitting the queued content from the at least one server to the particular
client computer." The Examiner relies on a combination of Rasinski and
Shaw for these limitations. Ans. 12-14; Final Act. 7.
Appellant contends these limitations "require[] the transfer of two
content sets," i.e., one for the "first radius" and a second for the projected
"geometrical shape." App. Br. 18-19. However, this argument is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim as currently written which instead
only requires queueing "content" (i.e., not all content) within the first set
"or" the second set of virtual world content. Thus, the queueing of any non-
cached content from either the first set or the second set falls within the
scope of this limitation.
Appellant also disputes the meaning of the term "content," arguing
Shaw's categorizing player's moves as either predictable or unpredictable is
not "world content; i.e., height maps, structures, sounds, etc." App. Br. 18.
However, we are not persuaded by Appellant's conclusory argument that the
8
Appeal2015-006708
Application 11/875,931
term content "leaves out things like updates to movements." Reply Br. 1-2.
To the contrary, the Specification teaches"[ v ]irtual world content includes
... avatar data, actor data, and artificial intelligence data." Spec. i-f 9.
Notably, Appellant elsewhere concedes the Examiner "appears to be
correct" that Shaw "discloses artificial intelligence and actor data." App. Br.
22; see also Final Act. 5 ("the prediction of players' moves to prefetch and
cache would be useful to update the other player's caches, and eventually
their maps"). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Shaw teaches or
suggests "content." Ans. 14. 1
We also are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that "the asserted
combination changes the principle of operation of Rasinski." App. Br. 13-
14. A "difference" between two prior art references does not necessarily
affect the "principle of operation." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed.
Cir. 2012). Here, we agree with the Examiner in finding Rasinski and Shaw
"both solve the same problem of predicting a user's next move so that the
relevant reactionary data is available by the time that move is completed"
(Final Act. 3) and that"[ e Jach teaching continues to ... function
unconflicted by the actions of the other." Ans. 7.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 19, and claims 20,
21, 24--27, 29-31, and 34--36, which Appellant argues are patentable for
similar reasons. 2 See App. Br. 15-20, 28-33; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
1 Although not relied on for our decision, we note in passing Rasinski
queues and transmits threats that are not within an aircraft's current line of
sight but are within its predicted line of sight thereby also teaching or
suggesting the disputed limitation. Rasinski 11 : 5 5-12: 8.
2 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider
whether claims 29 and 32, as well as their dependent claims, are indefinite
9
Appeal2015-006708
Application 11/875,931
Claims 20 and 30
Claim 20 recites "said virtual world content includes height map data
and structure data." We agree with the Examiner that Rasinski teaches
"local terrain and elevation data. This represents height map data." Ans. 15
(citing Rasinski FIG. 1, 11:38). We also agree with the Examiner that
Rasinski discloses threats, which teach or at least suggest structure data (e.g.,
an anti-aircraft emplacement). Final Act. 7 (citing Rasinski 12: 17-28).
Appellant contends the height map data and structure data must be
"encompassed within the first radius and the geometrical shape ... as well
as queued and transmitted." App. Br. 20. However, this argument is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 20 as written. Claim 20 depends
from claim 19, which recites "a first set of virtual world content" and "a
second set of said virtual world content." Thus, the first and second sets are
subsets of the "virtual world content." Claim 20 only addresses what "said
virtual world content" must include and says nothing about the first or
second sets.
Appellant further contends Rasinski fails to teach "structure data"
because "structures are buildings that can be entered." Reply Br. 6. The
Specification, however, merely teaches that in some embodiments, an avatar
can see through or enter portals; it does not limit structures to features that
can be entered nor does it require that all structures have portals. See Spec.
i-fi-136, 35 ("One example ... in FIG. 2A .... utilizes a portal structure ....
due to a lack of antecedent basis for "the first set of virtual world content"
(claim 29) and "said first set of virtual world content" (claim 32). Unlike
claim 19, claim 29 does not introduce "a first set of virtual world content."
10
Appeal2015-006708
Application 11/875,931
However, the principles of this invention can easily be extended ... to other
spatial data structures.").
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 20, and
claim 30, which Appellant argues is patentable for similar reasons. See App.
Br. 33-35; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 21 and 31
Claim 21 recites "said virtual world content includes a plurality of
data types selected from the group consisting of structure data, height map
data, object data, texture data, audio data, object data, actor data, and
artificial intelligence data."3
Appellant's arguments against claim 21 are similar to those for claim
20 (e.g., arguing there is no transmission of the specified data) and we reject
them for the same reasons. Appellant concedes Shaw "discloses artificial
intelligence and actor data." App. Br. 22. Nothing further is required based
on the claim as written. And even if transmission were required, we agree
with the Examiner that Shaw teaches or suggests "'transferring' the data
types, such [as] actor data and AI data." Ans. 16.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 21, and
claim 31, which Appellant argues is patentable for similar reasons. See App.
Br. 35; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 22, 23, 32, and 33
Claim 22 recites "said step of queueing comprises queueing less than
all structure data within said first set of virtual world content and said
3 We note that "object data" appears twice in this list. In the event of further
prosecution, consideration may be given to an amendment to eliminate the
repetition.
11
Appeal2015-006708
Application 11/875,931
second set of virtual world content" (emphasis added). Claim 32 similarly
recites "to queue less than all structure data" (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds Shaw "teaches ... the entirety of the results [of] a
player's moves need not be transmitted, as 'only a small amount of
information need be transmitted', which indeed represents 'less than all' of
all possible such information." Ans. 17-18 (emphasis added). However, we
agree with Appellant that "a player's moves" are not "structure data." App.
Br. 24. Thus, the Examiner has not sufficiently tied Shaw's "less than all"
specifically to the claimed "structure data."
Accordingly, we are constrained to not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 22 and 32, or their dependent claims 23 and 33. 4
Claims 28 and 37
Claims 28 and 37 recite "defin[ing] at least one story line associated
with said avatar" and "determin[ing] a next most likely element ... based on
said story line."
The Examiner finds "the storyline is the current game state that
brought the player to the point of using the weapon at that time." Ans. 22.
However, this is an unreasonably broad interpretation of "story line."
Moreover, Shaw does not teach or suggest what brought the player to the
current point. The Specification discloses "[ s ]tory line 404 comprises
multiple sequential story elements," and "a story element comprises a story
4 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider
whether Rasinski' s queueing and transmitting only visible threats within an
aircraft's line of sight-and only active threats rather than defeated threats-
teaches or suggests "less than all structure data." See Rasinski 12:3-28.
Similarly, the Examiner may wish to consider Hero Quest revealing some
data within a structure (e.g., objects within line of sight) but not others (e.g.,
objects blocked by a wall, or hidden traps). See Hero Quest 13, 15, 17-18.
12
Appeal2015-006708
Application 11/875,931
event, such as finding an object or solving a puzzle." Spec. ilil 42--43. We
agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown Shaw teaches or
suggests such a story line nor determining likely elements based on story
lines. App. Br. 25-28.
Accordingly, we are constrained to not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 28 and claim 37. 5
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 19-21, 24--27, 29-31, and 34--3 6.
We reverse the rejection of claims 22, 23, 28, 32, 33, and 37.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider
whether the quests in Hero Quest teach or suggest a story line, and whether a
combination of Hero Quest with Shaw would teach or suggest that certain
player moves are predictable and cached based on such a story line. See
Hero Quest 12 ("It is important that the Heroes understand the history
behind the Quest and the goal set before them.").
13