Ex Parte Shuster

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

11963765 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111963,765 12/21/2007 Brian Mark Shuster
112918 7590 09/29/2016
Coleman & Horowitt, LLP
499 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 116
Fresno, CA 93704
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.
70013-00120 1630
EXAMINER
HOANG, PHI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN MARK SHUSTER
Appeal2015-002353
Application 11/963,765
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Gary Shuster, the
named inventor. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-002353
Application 11/963,765
fNVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to animation control for multiple
participants in a virtual reality universe (VRU). See Abstract. Claim 1 is
illustrative and reads as follows:
1. A method of managing a computer-implemented animation
process for multiple participants, comprising:
animating motion of respective ones of modeled avatars in
a modeled VRU environment each independently responsive to
respective ones of multiple separate command streams provided
by separate clients to a host computer;
initiating a coordinated motion sequence at the host
involving the modeled avatars, wherein the coordinated motion
sequence simulates voluntary cooperative movements of the
avatars in response to a selected one of the multiple separate
command streams;
[LI] animating the coordinated motion sequence for the
modeled avatars to provide animation data, wherein the selected
one of the multiple separate command streams simultaneously
controls voluntaPJ movements of at least t\~10 respective ones of
modeled avatars during the coordinated motion sequence that,
prior to initiating the coordinated motion sequence were
independently controlled by different ones of the multiple
separate command streams; and
providing animation data for display of an animated scene
depicting the coordinated movement.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-15 and 18-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Choy et al. (US 6,695,770 Bl; Feb. 24,
2004) ("Choy") and Brush, II et al. (US 5,884,029; Mar. 16, 1999)
("Brush").
2
Appeal2015-002353
Application 11/963,765
Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Choy, Brush, and Segen (US
6,072,504; June 6, 2000).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-10 and 19-25
In rejecting representative claim 1, the Examiner found that Choy
teaches or suggests all of the recited limitations, except "the coordinated
motion sequence simulates voluntary cooperative movements of the avatars
in response to a selected one of the multiple separate command streams" and
limitation [LI], shown above, for which the Examiner relied on Brush. Final
Act. 4---6 (citing Brush cols. 4:53---67, 5:1-17); Ans. 19-22 (citing Brush
cols. 4:25-30, 4:53---67, 5: 1---6: 13).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the cited portions of
Brush do not teach or suggest limitation L 1, especially the phrase "wherein
the selected one of the multiple separate command streams simultaneously
controls voluntary movements of at least two respective ones of modeled
avatars during the coordinated motion sequence." App. Br. 7-8. Appellant
argues that, in Brush, the second avatar controls its own motions based on a
preprogrammed personality, and is never under the control of a single
command stream that simultaneously controls movements of both avatars.
Id. at 8-10; Reply 2---6.
We find a preponderance of the evidence supports Appellant's
contention. The Examiner's finding that "USERI alone can issue an
instruction to deliver a document that causes control of both A VATARI and
AV AT AR2 to physically interact with each other without instruction from
3
Appeal2015-002353
Application 11/963,765
USER2" is insufficient to show that Brush teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation. Ans. 20. The Examiner has not shown that, in Brush,
AV AT AR2 is ever under the control of the command stream of AV AT ARI.
Accordingly, on the record before us, we reverse the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejections of independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 6
and 19, which recite similar limitations. We also reverse the 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) rejection of dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, and 20-25, which depend
from claims 1, 6, and 19, respectively.
Claims 11-18
With regard to claim 11, Appellant contends the Examiner erred
because the cited portions of Brush do not teach or suggest:
[A] host animation engine operative to animate coordinated
movement of the two or more avatars in which client input
streams for controlling avatar movement are used to cause the
two or more avatars including the lead avatar to respond in part
to respective ones of the client input streams and in part to
predefined coordinated -volitntal}' moi'ement irJormation that
defines coordinated voluntary movement of one or more of the
avatars relative to the lead avatar so as to simulate voluntary
cooperative movements by the two or more avatars,
as recited in claim 11. App. Br. 12-13. In particular, Appellant argues that
Brush fails to disclose the portion of the limitation shown in italics above
because Brush discloses that a preprogrammed response controls the actions
of the avatar to whom the preprogrammed response belongs. Id. at 13
(citing Brush col. 5: 5-17). Appellant further argues that during the
preprogrammed response taught in Brush, "one of the avatars is responding
only to its pre-programming, and thus, specifically not responding 'in part to
respective ones of the client input streams,"' as claim 11 requires. Reply Br.
9.
4
Appeal2015-002353
Application 11/963,765
Appellant's arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. Unlike
claims 1, 6, and 19, discussed above, claim 11 does not require more than
one avatar to be under the simultaneous control of a single command stream.
Here, the Examiner found that Brush teaches animating preprogrammed
responses when one user's avatar receives an interaction from another user's
avatar, such as one avatar shaking the extended hand of another avatar (Final
Act. 13), or accepting a document from another avatar (Ans. 25). The
Examiner also found that the stimulus for doing that originated from
USERI 's instruction that caused AV ATARI to act. Id. Appellant presents
no persuasive explanation or evidence to rebut the Examiner's findings, and
does not persuade us that the second avatar, although providing a
preprogrammed response, is not also responding to the same input stream
controlling the first avatar. Thus, we find no error in the Examiner's finding
that Brush, in combination with Choy, teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 11, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
dependent claims 12-18, not argued separately. See App. Br. 14.
5
Appeal2015-002353
Application 11/963,765
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-10 and
19-25.
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 11-18.
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
6