Ex Parte Koster et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 10, 201512249154 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte RAPH KOSTER, SEAN RILEY, and JOHN DONHAM Appeal 2013-0025961 Application 12/249,154 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is Walt Disney Company. App. Br. 2. An oral hearing was held in this appeal on January 29, 2015. Appeal 2013-002596 Application 12/249,154 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–4 and 6–20. Claim 5 has been canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm in part. Appellants’ Invention Appellants invented a system for providing users with accessible virtual spaces on the Web. In particular, upon receiving from a remotely located browser a request to access virtual objects in an instance of virtual space (32) stored at a server (14), a network interaction module (31) within the server (14) manages the execution of the operation associated with the request, and transmits the results associated therewith to the requester at the browser. Spec. ¶¶17–19, Fig. 1. Representative Claim Independent claim 1 is representative. It reads as follows: 1. A system configured to provide a virtual space that is accessible to a user, wherein a virtual space is a simulated physical space that has a topography, expresses real-time interaction by the user, and includes one or more virtual objects positioned within the topography that experience locomotion within the topography, the system comprising: a server that executes an instance of a virtual space such that within the instance of the virtual space there are a plurality of a network accessible virtual objects, the plurality of network accessible virtual objects comprising a first virtual object associated with a first network location and a second virtual object associated with a second network location, and wherein the server is configured to execute: Appeal 2013-002596 Application 12/249,154 3 an instantiation module that executes the instance of the virtual space in order to generate views of the virtual space for presentation to users; and a network interaction module that manages commands transmitted to network locations associated with the plurality of network accessible virtual objects from browsers, wherein the network interaction module is configured such that responsive to reception of a first command at the first network location, the network interaction module manages the execution of one or more operations in accordance with the first command, and transmits the results of the one or more operations to a browser that transmitted the first command, and wherein the network interaction module is further configured such that responsive to reception of a second command at the second network location, the network interaction module manages the execution of one or more operations in accordance with the second command, and transmits the results of the one or more operations to a browser that transmitted the second command. Prior Art Relied Upon Morikawa US 2001/0049787 A1 Dec. 6, 2001 Ushiro US 2003/0008713 A1 Jan. 9, 2003 Leahy US 2007/0050716 A1 Mar. 1, 2007 Edeker US 2007/0288598 A1 Dec. 13, 2007 McBride US 2008/0280684 A1 Nov. 13, 2008 Ratcliff US 2009/0036216 A1 Feb. 5, 2009 Taylor US 7,904,577 B2 Mar. 8, 2011 Appeal 2013-002596 Application 12/249,154 4 Rejections on Appeal2 The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows: Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by McBride. Claims 2–4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of McBride and Leahy. Claims 6, 9, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of McBride and Edeker. Claims 7, 8, 10, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of McBride, Edeker, and Leahy. Claims 11, 12, and 14–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of McBride, Leahy, Taylor, and Morikawa. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of McBride, Leahy, Taylor, Morikawa, and Ushiro. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of McBride, Edeker, and Ratcliff. ANALYSIS We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 7–20, and the Reply Brief, pages 4–10.3 2 The Examiner withdrew the indefiniteness rejection previously entered against claims 11–16. Ans. 22. 3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 13, 2012), the Reply Brief (filed December 3, 2012), and the Answer (mailed October 1, 2012) for the Appeal 2013-002596 Application 12/249,154 5 Anticipation Rejection Dispositive Issue 1: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, did the Examiner err in finding McBride describes upon receiving commands at different network locations associated with different virtual objects, a server executes the commands in the instance containing the objects, and transmits the results back to the respective sources of the commands, as recited in independent claim 1? Appellants argue McBride does not describe the disputed limitations. App. Br. 9–10, Reply Br. 4–6. First, Appellants argue the client computers disclosed in McBride do not describe the separate network locations recited in the claim. In particular, Appellants submit the following: The instance of the virtual world accessed through computers 120 and 140 is not executed on either of computer 120 or 140. Instead, the instance of the virtual world is executed on server 160, and this is where operations are executed in response to received commands. The commands that cause actions to be executed may be entered by users to computers 120 and 140, and then transmitted to server 160. Reply Br. 5 (internal citation omitted). We understand the argument reproduced hereinabove to mean that although McBride discloses two client computers for accessing an instance of a virtual world on a remote server, the instance of the virtual world is executed on the server, not on the client computers in response to commands received at the server. That is, because the commands are received at server respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Brief. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2012); 76 Fed. Reg. 72,270 (Nov. 22, 2011). Appeal 2013-002596 Application 12/249,154 6 160 and not at the client computers, McBride does not describe that the commands are received by the server from the different network locations. Id. at 6. This argument is not persuasive. On the one hand, Appellants admit that the commands executed at the server may be entered at the client computers, then transmitted to the server. Id. at 5. However, on the other hand, Appellants argue “McBride does not disclose whether server 160 receives the command at separate network locations.” Id. at 6. Although Appellants’ Specification generally refers to the network locations as uniform resource locators (URLs) (Spec. ¶30), the Specification does not provide an express definition for network locations. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a network location generally refers to the address of a component that is part of a network. We further note the claim does not require that the network locations be stored at the server. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the client computers disclosed in McBride describe different network locations (Ans. 23) because they each have a specific address on the network depicted in Figure 1 of McBride. Further, we agree with the Examiner’s finding (as admitted by Appellants (Reply Br. 5)) that because the client computers transfer received commands to the server for subsequent execution, McBride describes that the commands are received at the separate network locations and executed at the server. Ans. 23. Additionally, because McBride discloses returning to the client computer results executed at the server in response to the received commands (Spec. ¶80), McBride describes returning the results to the network locations from where the commands originated. It follows Appeal 2013-002596 Application 12/249,154 7 Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1. Obviousness Rejections Regarding the rejection of claims 2–4, Appellants reiterate the same arguments previously submitted for claim 1. App. Br. 10. As discussed above, these arguments are not persuasive. Appellants have similarly failed to show error in the obviousness rejection of claims 2–4. Regarding the rejection of claim 6, Appellants argue the combination of McBride and Edeker does not teach or suggest storing network location information that will dictate an aspect of an assignment of a network location to a virtual object. App. Br. 10–14. This argument is not persuasive because, as discussed above, the address of client computers in the network disclosed in McBride teaches the network location. Further, we agree with the Examiner that Edeker’s disclosure of each network component having a separate and distinct IP address would complement McBride’s teaching thereby predictably resulting in aiding in the assignment of network location (IP address) to each of the client computers. Ans. 23–24. It follows Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. We sustain this rejection. For these same reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7–10, which are not separately argued. Regarding the rejection of claim 17, Appellants argue the combination of McBride and Edeker does not teach or suggest a virtual object in a virtual space including a browser for interacting with webpages served remotely from the server. App. Br. 15–16. We agree with Appellants. McBride discloses using a browser downloaded from a server for interacting with a Appeal 2013-002596 Application 12/249,154 8 webpage. Ans. 11 (citing, e.g., McBride ¶ 74). However, the disclosed browser is not included in a virtual space along with other virtual objects. For this same reason, we find error in the Examiner’s finding that Edeker’s disclosure of client browsers teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. Ans. 24–25. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 17, as well as claims 18–20, which recite commensurate limitations. Regarding the rejection of claim 11, Appellants argue the combination of McBride and Edeker does not teach or suggest authenticating a client to a virtual space based on the authentication information associated with a third party. App. Br. 17. According to Appellants, because a user is authenticated as part of a group certificate, Morikawa discloses authenticating the user, not a third party. Id. at 18. This argument is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that Morikawa’s use of a group certificate to identify and authenticate a group of users represents an indirect or third-party authentication. Ans. 25. In particular, it is not enough that the user be a member of the group. Instead, the group as a whole must also be authenticated (i.e., the group certificate’s legitimacy must be verified). Morikawa ¶ 21. The group as a whole is a separate entity from the user, and thus represents a third-party. It follows Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11. We sustain this rejection. For these same reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12–16, which are not separately argued. DECISION Appeal 2013-002596 Application 12/249,154 9 We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–4 and 6–16. However, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17–20 as set forth above. 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 tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation