Ex Parte Hoomani et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 5, 201612871752 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 5, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/871,752 08/30/2010 Cyrus J. Hoomani 77754 7590 06/22/2016 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. c/o Patterson & Sheridan, LLP 24 Greenway Plaza Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77046-2472 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. DISN/0024 (044218) 2308 EXAMINER NUNEZ, JORDANY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2171 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/22/2016 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): P AIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CYRUS J. HOOMANI and VITA MARKMAN Appeal2014-001395 Application 12/871,752 Technology Center 2100 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, ADAM J. PYONIN, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-1 7, 19-24, and 26, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). Claims 4, 11, 18, and 25 are cancelled. (App. Br. 18, 20-21, 23 (Claims App'x).) We reverse. 1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Disney Enterprises, Inc. (App. Br. 3.) Appeal2014-001395 Application 12/871,752 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' disclosed invention relates to "computer-based online communication, and in particular, to chat messages exchanged between users in online gaming and social environments." (Spec. i-f 1.) Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 1. A computer-implemented method for facilitating communication between users in an online virtual environment, compnsmg: generating a first list of expressions based on a first linguistic profile associated with a first plurality of users, wherein the first plurality of users communicate within a first online environment in a first language; generating a second list of expressions based on a second linguistic profile associated with a second plurality of users, wherein the second plurality of users communicate within a second online environment in the first language; determining a mapping from one or more entries in the first list of expressions to corresponding one or more entries in the second list of expressions; updating the first linguistic profile based on an analysis of user-to-user communications between the first plurality of users; and updating the first list of expressions based on the updated first linguistic profile. The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Chin US 2001/0029455 Al Oct. 11, 2001 Potluri US 2006/0129633 Al June 15, 2006 Noda US 2008/0288241 Al Nov. 20, 2008 Brignull US 2009/0210803 Al Aug. 20, 2009 Jimenez US 2010/0169769 Al July 1, 2010 2 Appeal2014-001395 Application 12/871,752 Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noda, Chin, and Brignull. (See Final Act. 2--4.) Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noda, Chin, Brignull, and Potluri. (See Final Act. 4--7.) Claims 22 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noda, Jimenez, Chin, and Brignull. (See Final Act. 7-10.) Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noda, Jimenez, Chin, Brignull, and Potluri. (See Final Act. 10-12.) Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs ("App. Br." filed July 31, 2013; "Reply Br." filed Oct. 29, 2013) and the Specification ("Spec." filed Aug. 30, 2010 for the positions of Appellants and the Final Office Action ("Final Act." mailed Jan. 31, 2013) and Answer ("Ans." mailed Aug. 29, 2013) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions of the Examiner. ISSUE Based on Appellants' arguments, we discuss the appeal by referring to claim 1. The dispositive issue presented by Appellants' contentions is as follows: 2 Does the combination of Noda and Chin teach or suggest "updating the first linguistic profile based on an analysis of user-to-user communications between the first plurality of users," as recited in claim 1? 2 Appellants' contentions present additional issues. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional issues. 3 Appeal2014-001395 Application 12/871,752 ANALYSIS The Examiner relies on Chin, when combined with Noda, to teach "updating the first linguistic profile based on an analysis of user-to-user communications between the first plurality of users," as recited in claim 1. (Final Act, 3. (citing Noda i-fi-122, 26, 34; Chin i-fi-f 142, 179).) The Examiner explains as follows: Chin clearly teaches analyzing communications between users, for example, Chin (i-f [0142]) teaches dissecting compound phrases (e.g., of communication between users) into analyzable units. Applying rules to unstructured text, thus, does involve analysis of communication between users, as Chin discloses. Further, Appellant does not address Chin's teaching (i-f [0179]) of updating the filters to keep up with current slang and chat language. Clearly then, Chin teaches updating filters by actually analyzing communications between users. (Ans. 6 (brackets in original).) Appellants contend as follows: Chin makes no mention of updating a linguistic profile based on an analysis of user-to-user communications between a plurality of users. Nothing in this updates anything by actually analyzing communications between users. Instead, rules search for one pattern of text, e.g., a slang term, and rewrites that pattern with another, e.g., a normalized version of the slang term. (App. Br. 15.) Appellants further contend "Chin teaches that the filters can be updated, but makes no mention of how these filters are updated." (Id.) We agree with Appellants. The Examiner is correct that the cited passages of Chin teach constantly updating filters to keep up with current slang and chat language, which reasonably suggests updating a linguistic profile or a list of expressions or both. (Ans. 6; Chin i-f 179.) The Examiner is also correct that the cited passages of Chin teach analyzing messages 4 Appeal2014-001395 Application 12/871,752 between users. (Ans. 6; Chin ilil 142, 174--176.) However, nothing in the cited passages of Chin teaches that the updating of filters occurs based on Chin's analysis of messages. Further, the Examiner has not provided any explanation that fills the gap in Chin's teachings. We are persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claim 1, independent claims 8, 15, and 22, which recite a substantially similar limitation to that discussed supra and were rejected on substantially similar bases (see Final Act. 2-3, 8-9), and claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 17, 19-21, 23, 24, and 26, which variously depend from claims 1, 8, 15, and 22. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19- 24, and 26 is reversed. REVERSED kme 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation