Ex Parte Shuster

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2015

11867345 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/867,345 10/04/2007 Brian Mark Shuster 70013.00113 8848
7590 09/24/2015
Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP
P.O. BOX 2207
Wilmington, DE 19899
EXAMINER
PHAM, LINH K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2015 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
____________

Appeal 2013-007764
Application 11/867,345
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CATHERINE SHIANG, JOHN P. PINKERTON,
and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 13–25, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. Claims 1–12 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant generally describes the invention as follows:

1 Appellant states he is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2013-007764
Application 11/867,345

2
A multi-user process receives input from multiple remote
clients to manipulate avatars through a virtual environment
modeled in a host memory. The environment includes portal
objects operable to transport avatars, which are modeled
objects operated in response to client input, between defined
areas of the virtual environment. The portals are customizable
in response to client input to transport avatars to destinations
preferred by users. Adjacent defined areas are not confined in
extent by shared boundaries. The host provides model data
or display of the modeled environment to participating clients.

Abstract.

Claim 13 is exemplary and reads as follows:
13. A method for controlling a portal between adjacent
regions of modeled space in a multiplayer game, comprising:

modeling, in a computer memory of a host
configured for communication with multiple remote clients, a
fixed home region of a modeled environment;

modeling additional regions of the modeled
environment in the computer memory as connected to the home
region via a modeled portal included in the home region,
through which passage of modeled avatars between the home
region and the additional regions is enabled by the host,
wherein the additional regions and the home region each
comprise separate regions of modeled space containing distinct
arrangements of modeled objects;

modeling movement of an avatar between the
home region and the additional regions through the modeled
portal, in response to input received from one of the
multiple remote clients;

for an avatar modeled as moving from the home
region through the modeled portal, automatically selecting, by
the host, a destination from the additional regions for the
Appeal 2013-007764
Application 11/867,345

3
avatar moving through the portal, based on which of multiple
different preferences is associated with the avatar for the portal
in the data record.

Rejection on Appeal
Claims 13–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kamachi (US 2005/0005247 A1; Jan. 6, 2005) and
Mendelsohn (US 2006/0293103 A1; Dec. 28, 2006).
Issues on Appeal
The following issues are raised by Appellant’s arguments in the
Appeal Brief and Reply Brief:2
1. Does Mendelsohn teach or suggest “for an avatar modeled as
moving from the home region through the modeled portal,
automatically selecting, by the host, a destination from the
additional regions for the avatar moving through the portal,
based on which of multiple different preferences is associated
with the avatar for the portal in data record” (emphasis added
for limitation at issue), as recited in claim 13 and similarly
recited in claim 19?
2. Does Mendelsohn teach or suggest “the expanded space has a
greater interior plan area apparent to avatars in the expanded
space than its apparent exterior plan area apparent to avatars in
the non-expanded space,” as recited in claim 23?

2 Our Decision refers to the Final Action, mailed Aug. 15, 2012 (“Final
Act.”), Appellant’s Appeal Brief, filed Feb. 15, 2013 (“Appeal Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer, mailed Mar. 26, 2013 (“Ans.”), Appellant’s Reply
Brief, filed May 28, 2013 (“Reply Br.”), and the original Specification, filed
on Oct. 4, 2007 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2013-007764
Application 11/867,345

4

ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Appellant contends Mendelsohn fails to teach or suggest the host
automatically selecting a destination for the avatar “based on which of
multiple different preferences is associated with the avatar for the portal in a
data record,” as recited in claim 13 (Appeal Br. 8–11; Reply Br. 2–6), and
“based on preference information for the avatar stored in a data record,” as
recited in claim 19 (Appeal Br. 11–14; Reply Br. 8). The Examiner finds
Mendelsohn describes two situations that teach automatically selecting by
the host a destination for the avatar. Ans. 3–8 (citing Mendelsohn ¶¶ 137
and 143–144). The first situation concerns a parade in which the floats
carrying the avatar move out to Main street and slowly move through the
parade route. See Mendelsohn ¶ 137. The second situation concerns
monorail trains in which the trains travel sequentially from one stop to the
other around the park. See Mendelsohn ¶ 144.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has erred. As Appellant
argues, the Examiner acknowledges in the Answer that, in both the parade
route and train route of Mendelsohn, the user is unable to change the route
or, in regard to the train, change or select the next station for the train to
stop. Reply Br. 8 (see Ans. 5–8). Thus, we agree with Appellant that
Mendelsohn fails to teach or suggest automatically selecting a destination
based on preferences associated with the avatar or preference information
for the avatar, and instead teaches using a predetermined destination based
on a train or parade route. Reply Br. 3–8. Accordingly, we do not sustain
Appeal 2013-007764
Application 11/867,345

5
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13 and 19 and claims 14–18, which
depend from claim 13, and claims 20–22, which depend from claim 19.
Issue 2
The Examiner finds Kamachi discloses “maintaining separately-
defined maps of a non-expanded space . . . and an expanded space . . . joined
by a portal object modeled in both the non-expanded space and the expanded
space such that movement of avatars is permitted between the expanded and
the non-expanded space via the portal object . . . ,” as recited in claim 23.
Ans. 8–9; Final Act. 16. The Examiner relies on Mendelsohn for teaching
the limitation at issue. Ans. 9–10. Citing Figures 4, 6, and 7, and
paragraphs 75 and 80–82, the Examiner finds Mendelsohn teaches “the
expanded space has a greater interior plan apparent to avatars in the
expanded space than its apparent exterior plan area apparent to avatars in the
non-expanded space.” Id.; Final Act. 17. In particular, the Examiner finds
Mendelsohn discloses the Virtual Magic Kingdom (“VMK”) can include
two different graphic scales, the smaller scale being used in public areas
representing the park (non-expanded space) and the larger scale (bigger
avatars) used for user’s own rooms (expanded space). See Mendelsohn ¶ 75.
The Examiner also finds Mendelsohn discloses players using a visualized
map of the VMK to choose an area on the map (non-expanded space) and,
“[a]fter choosing the area, a more accurate representation of that area
[expanded space] is shown (zoom) . . . .” Final Act. 17 (emphasis omitted);
Mendelsohn ¶ 80. The Examiner further finds Mendelsohn discloses the
player can then choose a room in that area and be transported to the room if
it is available. Id.
Appeal 2013-007764
Application 11/867,345

6
Appellant contends the Examiner’s finding is clearly erroneous
because Mendelsohn fails to teach different sizes of a space apparent to an
avatar based on whether the avatar is located in the space or outside the
space. Appeal Br. 14–16; Reply Br. 9–11. Appellant argues Mendelsohn
teaches zooming in on an area, but a zoomed view cannot read on the
limitation at issue because zooming does not change the extent or apparent
size of an area. Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 10. Appellant also argues
Mendelsohn’s practice of rendering different areas at different scales is
irrelevant to claim 23 because the apparent area of a modeled space is not
altered merely by rendering at different scales. Reply Br. 10–11.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has
erred. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that zooming in
on an area, as disclosed by Mendelsohn, changes the apparent size of an area
to avatars. Final Act. 17; Mendelsohn ¶¶ 80–82. The focus of the limitation
at issue is the area “apparent to avatars” and not the actual physical area of
the space. Thus, Appellant’s argument that zooming does not change the
“extent” of an area is irrelevant because the claim addresses the area from
the perspective of the avatar—the area is larger from the avatar’s perspective
inside of the expanded space than its apparent area from the avatar’s
perspective in the non-expanded space (outside of the expanded space). For
the same reason, Appellant’s argument that “claim 23 defines an expanded
area that is bigger on the inside than on the outside” is unpersuasive because
the claim defines the area of the expanded space in terms of what is
“apparent to avatars” instead of its physical size. We are also not persuaded
by Appellant’s argument that zooming cannot reasonably include movement
between different zones because, as the Examiner finds, Mendelsohn teaches
Appeal 2013-007764
Application 11/867,345

7
zooming to an area chosen by a player and then choosing a room and being
transported to that location if space is available. Id. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding Mendelsohn teaches or suggests “the expanded space
has a greater interior plan area apparent to avatars in the expanded space
than its apparent exterior plan area apparent to avatars in the non-expanded
space,” as recited in claim 23.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23 and
dependent claims 24–25, which are not argued separately.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13–22 is reversed. The
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 23–25 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

kme