Ex Parte YUEN

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 21, 2006

09470871 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 21, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication in a law journal and is not binding precedent
of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HENRY C. YUEN
____________

Appeal No. 2006-0348
Application No. 09/470,871
____________

HEARD: February 7, 2006
____________

Before GROSS, BLANKENSHIP, and NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 6 and 8 through 10, which are all
of the claims pending in this application. Claim 7 has been
canceled.
Appellant's invention relates to a method of simulating a
virtual world on the world-wide web such that a user's sense of
distance is graphically and functionally restored. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
Appeal No. 2006-0348
Application No. 09/470,871

2
1. A method of user interaction on the world-wide web,
comprising the steps of:

defining a virtual world using at least one web site, the
virtual world including a virtual geographic terrain with a set
of virtual locations;

displaying the virtual geographic terrain and virtual
locations to a plurality of visitors to the virtual world, each
being interconnected to the web site through the world-wide web;

identifying each visitor to the virtual world with a symbol
superimposed on the geographic terrain;

providing a facility whereby visitors may traverse virtual
geographic terrain and visit virtual locations by moving the
symbols;

predicting a next location where a visitor might traverse
within the virtual world based upon previous symbol movements;

caching information to provide a more immediate presentation
of the next location; and

establishing a common metric with respect to each visitor,
enabling one visitor to interact with another visitor in
accordance with the metric.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Brady et al. (Brady) 5,434,927 Jul. 18, 1995
Redmann et al. (Redmann) 5,696,892 Dec. 09, 1997
Leahy et al. (Leahy) 6,219,045 Apr. 17, 2001
(filed Nov. 12, 1996)
Matsuda 6,346,956 Feb. 12, 2002
(filed Sep. 29, 1997)
Cheng 6,396,509 May 28, 2002
(filed Feb. 21, 1998)
Claims 1 through 4 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal No. 2006-0348
Application No. 09/470,871

3

§ 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Brady.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Brady and Cheng.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Brady and Leahy.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Brady and Redmann.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 11,
mailed December 3, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant's Brief (Paper
No. 10, filed October 14, 2003) for appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1 through 6 and
8 through 10.
With regard to claims 1 through 4 and 8, the examiner admits
(Answer, page 4) that Matsuda fails to disclose the steps of
"predicting a next location where a visitor might traverse within
the virtual world based upon previous symbol movements" and
Appeal No. 2006-0348
Application No. 09/470,871

4

"caching information to provide a more immediate presentation of
the next location." The examiner asserts (Answer, page 4) that
Brady "teaches a method for tracking objects in a virtual
environment wherein potential future positions are predicted."
According to the examiner, it would have been obvious to combine
Matsuda and Brady "in order to improve response time." Also, the
examiner relies on Official Notice that cache memories were well
known in the art and, therefore, contends that the use of a cache
memory would have been obvious "to provide users quick access to
data resulting in a more immediate presentation of the next
location."
Appellant argues (Brief, page 4) that there is no suggestion
or teaching in the references to combine. We agree.
Notwithstanding the examiner's statements to the contrary, Brady
does not deal with a virtual environment. Brady's method
classifies and tracks vehicles by using images provided in real-
time by video cameras. The method predicts potential future
track points to avoid the delay in inferring trends involved in
prior methods. Brady discloses (column 11, lines 49-51) that
response time is improved by reducing the resolution of an image,
Appeal No. 2006-0348
Application No. 09/470,871

5

not by predicting next locations. Thus, we find no teaching in
Brady to predict next locations in a virtual environment to
improve response times. In addition, although we agree that
cache memories were well known in the art, we find nothing in the
references of record that would suggest using a cache memory in
the manner recited in claim 1. Thus, the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness, and we cannot
sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 4 and 8.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 9, and 10, Cheng, Leahy, and Redmann
fail to cure the deficiencies of the primary combination.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejections of claims
5, 6, 9, and 10.
Appeal No. 2006-0348
Application No. 09/470,871

6

CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 6
and 8 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED

ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ROBERT NAPPI )
Administrative Patent Judge )

APG/vsh
Appeal No. 2006-0348
Application No. 09/470,871

7

GIFFORD, KRASS, GROH,
SPRINKLE & CITKOWSKI, P.CPO BOX 7021TROY, MI 48007-7021