Ex Parte Torabi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 28, 2011

09933582 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 28, 2011)

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.
09/933,582 08/20/2001 Mohammad Torabi LUTZ 2 00405 5639
48116 7590 04/29/2011
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
EXAMINER
BATURAY, ALICIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MOHAMMAD TORABI
____________________

Appeal 2009-006413
Application No. 10/386,5301
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and THOMAS S. HAHN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention concerns a system and method for conducting a
virtual reality “episode,” i.e., the presentation of virtual reality data to a user
via virtual reality environment user equipment (VUE). The VUE captures
and displays virtual reality data (which may include audio and video data)

1 The real party in interest is Lucent Technologies, Inc.
Appeal 2009-006413
Application 09/933582

2
representing an actual physical environment associated with the user (Spec.
5-6). The VUE is in communication with a VRE Access System (VAS), an
intermediate component of the VRE system linking the VUE to a VRE Core
Network System (VCS) (Spec. 9). A VRE Episode Management Entity
(VEME) manages, coordinates, synchronizes, and maintains all the events
and VRE users’ links within a VRE episode (Spec. 14).
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A virtual reality system, comprising:
at least one virtual reality environment user equipment (VUE) operative
to capture and transmit real-world video and audio data and to display
received virtual reality data representing an actual physical environment;
at least one virtual reality environment core system (VCS), wherein: the
core system is in communication with at least two virtual reality
environment subscriber databases (VSD), one of which has a relatively local
location and at least one of which has a relatively remote location; the virtual
reality environment core system being in wireless communication with the at
least one VUE, the core system being operative to access the relatively local
VSD, to retrieve respective subscription information of the at least one VUE
if the core system is a respective home core system of the at least one VUE,
and to access at least one of the at least one relatively remotely located VSD
to retrieve respective subscription information of the at least one VUE if the
core system is a visited virtual reality core system relative to the at least one
VUE; and
a virtual reality environment episode management entity (VEME) which
is in communication with the at least one virtual reality environment core
system and is operative to forward the virtual reality data representing the
environment to the at least one VUE and receive the real-world video and
audio data from the at least one VUE, thereby facilitating a virtual reality
episode.

9. A method of enabling the real-time establishment and conduction of a
real-time virtual reality episode (VRE), comprising:
receiving a request for establishing a virtual reality episode (VRE)
from VRE user equipment (VUE);
Appeal 2009-006413
Application 09/933582

3
accessing a relatively local virtual reality environment subscriber
database (VSD) to retrieve subscription information associated with the
VUE if an entity receiving the request is a respective home virtual reality
core system of the VUE;
accessing a relatively remote VSD to retrieve respective subscription
information of the VUE if the entity receiving the request is a visited virtual
reality core system (VCS) relative to the VUE;
receiving real time virtual reality data at a virtual reality environment
(VRE) episode management entity (VEME), wherein the virtual reality data
is representative of an actual physical environment;
determining, at a VRE episode management entity, that the virtual
reality data is associated with the requested virtual reality episode; and
forwarding, based on the accessed subscription information, at least a
portion of the virtual reality data to the VUE, wherein the VRE user
equipment is in wireless communication with the VRE episode management
entity (VEME), and wherein the VRE user equipment (VUE) is operative to
capture, transmit and display virtual reality data.

17. A method of participating in a real-time virtual reality episode,
comprising;
providing a virtual reality environment user equipment (VUE),
wherein the virtual reality user equipment (VUE) captures and displays
virtual reality data representing an actual physical environment associated
with a first user;
wirelessly transmitting the captured virtual reality data to a first
virtual reality environment access systems (VAS)
communicating the captured virtual reality data to intervening
network elements including a second VAS
accessing a relatively local virtual reality environment subscriber
database (VSD) to retrieve subscription information associated with a
second user participating in the virtual reality episode, if an entity in
communication with the second user is a home virtual reality core system
(H-VCS) of the second user;
accessing a relatively remote VSD to retrieve subscription information
of the second user if the entity in communication with the second user is a
visited virtual reality core system (V-VCS) relative to the second user; and
wirelessly transmitting the virtual reality data from the second VAS to
the second user as authorized by the subscription information associated
Appeal 2009-006413
Application 09/933582

4
with the second user, wherein the second VAS and the second user are
geographically remote from the first user.

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Filo US 6,215,498 B1 Apr. 10, 2001
Barnes US 5,711,147 B1 Mar. 23, 2004

Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Filo in view of Barnes.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed October 5, 2007), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
March 18, 2008) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed February 21,
2008) for their respective details.

ISSUES
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the combination of Filo and Barnes
does not teach or fairly suggest (a) at least one virtual reality environment
user equipment (VUE) operative to capture and transmit real world video
data (App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 9); (b) a virtual reality environment episode
management entity (VEME), particularly one “operative to manage,
coordinate, synchronize and maintain event information and mobile links
between participants and information sources associated with a virtual
reality episode” (App. Br. 10); and (c) transmitting captured virtual reality
data to a first virtual reality environment access system (VAS), and
communicating the VR data to a second VAS, wherein the second VAS is
geographically remote (App. Br. 34-35).
Appeal 2009-006413
Application 09/933582

5
Appellant’s contentions present us with the following issues:
1. Does Filo or Barnes teach or fairly suggest at least one virtual
reality environment user equipment (VUE) operative to capture and transmit
real-world video and audio data?
2. Does Filo or Barnes teach or fairly suggest receiving real time
virtual reality data at a virtual reality environment (VRE) episode
management entity (VEME)?
3. Does Filo or Barnes teach or fairly suggest wirelessly transmitting
the captured virtual reality data to a first virtual reality environment access
system (VAS) and communicating the captured virtual reality data to
intervening network elements including a second VAS, wherein the second
VAS is geographically remote from the first user?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to which said subject matter pertains.’”

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 405 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in
the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 550
U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
Appeal 2009-006413
Application 09/933582

6
any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that
controls.”)

ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1-8
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Filo fails to teach at
least one VUE operative to capture and transmit real world video data, as
recited in independent claim 1 (Reply Br. 9). The Examiner’s citations to
columns 3, 4, and 7 (Ans. 20, 21) do not support the Examiner’s assertion
that Filo teaches this limitation. Filo’s disclosure of a “virtual video phone”
(col. 13, ll. 44-47) provides a teaching of the transmission (and reception) of
video data, but fails to teach user equipment operative to capture real world
video data.
We therefore find that the combination of Filo and Barnes does not
teach or fairly suggest all the elements of independent claim 1.
Consequently, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, as well
as claims 2-8 dependent therefrom, as unpatentable under § 103 over Filo in
view of Barnes. We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection.

CLAIMS 9-16 AND 20-22
Independent claim 9 recites that “user equipment is in wireless
communication with the VRE episode management entity (VEME).”
Independent claim 16 requires a VEME “in communication with at least one
user and one virtual reality core system (VCS), wherein the VEME forwards
real time virtual reality data representative of an actual physical environment
to the at least one VUE associated with the at least one user . . . .”
Appeal 2009-006413
Application 09/933582

7
Independent claim 20 recites a VEME “operative to manage,
coordinate, synchronize and maintain event information and mobile links
between participants and information sources associated with a virtual
reality episode.”
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive to show that the Examiner erred
in rejecting these claims, each of which recite a virtual reality environment
episode management entity (VEME). The portions of Filo relied upon by the
Examiner (see Ans. 7, 10, 13, 21-22) either provide no support for the
Examiner’s contention that Filo teaches a VEME, or establish only that Filo
teaches the claimed virtual reality core system (VCS), as distinct from the
VEME.
Because we find that Filo does not teach the VEME as claimed, we
find that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 9, 16, and 20, as
well as claims 10-15, 21, and 22 dependent therefrom, as unpatentable under
§ 103 over Filo in view of Barnes. We will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection.
CLAIMS 17-19
Claim 17 recites “wirelessly transmitting the captured virtual reality
data to a first virtual reality environment access systems (sic) (VAS),” and
“communicating the captured virtual reality data to intervening network
elements including a second VAS,” wherein “the second VAS and the
second user are geographically remote from the first user.”
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that neither Filo nor
Barnes teach or fairly suggest these limitations. It is the Examiner’s position
that the authentication procedure of Filo that links each user to the virtual
reality environment is functionally equivalent to the claimed VAS (Ans. 25).
Appeal 2009-006413
Application 09/933582

8
Even if we accept the Examiner’s argument that structure or functions
analogous to the claimed VAS are inherent in Filo, the Examiner has
identified no teaching in Filo or Barnes (and we do not find any such
teaching) to the effect that captured virtual reality data is communicated to a
second VAS, which is geographically remote from the first.
Accordingly, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 17, as well as claims 18 and 19 dependent therefrom, as unpatentable
under § 103 over Filo in view of Barnes. We will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection.

CONCLUSIONS
1. Neither Filo nor Barnes teaches or fairly suggests at least one
virtual reality environment user equipment (VUE) operative to capture and
transmit real-world video and audio data.
2. Neither Filo nor Barnes teaches or fairly suggests receiving real
time virtual reality data at a virtual reality environment (VRE) episode
management entity (VEME).
3. Neither Filo nor Barnes teaches or fairly suggests wirelessly
transmitting the captured virtual reality data to a first virtual reality
environment access system (VAS) and communicating the captured virtual
reality data to intervening network elements including a second VAS,
wherein the second VAS is geographically remote from the first user.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of 1-22 is reversed.

Appeal 2009-006413
Application 09/933582

9
REVERSED

ELD