Ex Parte Narayanan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 18, 2017

13626319 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2017)

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.
13/626,319 09/25/2012 Srinivasan Narayanan 4366YDT-168 1773
48500 7590 05/22/2017
SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
EXAMINER
ELBINGER, STEVEN Z
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/22/2017 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):
cjacquet@ sheridanross.com
pair_Avay a @ firsttofile. com
edocket @ sheridanross .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SRINIVASAN NARAYANAN
Appeal 2017-001144
Application 13/626,319
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, CATHERINE SHIANG, and TERRENCE W.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 3—21, which are all the claims pending and rejected
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
providing dynamic visual notification of shared and personal
communications and information in a virtual environment. See generally
Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
Appeal 2017-001144
Application 13/626,319
1. A method performed by a processor for presenting
information in a virtual reality environment, the method
comprising:
providing a virtual reality module;
registering a first user with the virtual reality module;
registering a second user with the virtual reality module;
using the virtual reality module, providing the first and
second users with shared information;
using the virtual reality module, providing the first user
with information that is personal to the first user, wherein the
processor withholds from the second user the information that is
personal to the first user, wherein the information that is personal
to the first user originated from a source outside of the virtual
reality environment; and
presenting the information that is personal to the first user
in a personal information area of the first communication device,
wherein the information personal to the first user moves with the
first user through the virtual reality environment from a first
virtual room to at least a second virtual room.
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 3—5, and 11—17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Robinson (US 2012/0278740 Al; publ. Nov. 1,
2012), Fukuchi (US 2012/0210254 Al; publ. Aug. 16, 2012), and Bill (US
8,010,474 Bl; iss. Aug. 30, 2011).
Claims 6—10 and 18—21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Robinson, Fukuchi, Bill, and Bouten (US
2009/0193106 Al; publ. July 30, 2009).
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
2
Appeal 2017-001144
Application 13/626,319
appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our
analysis below.1
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
I
Appellant contends none of the cited references teaches “using the
virtual reality module, providing the first user with information that is
personal to the first user, wherein the processor withholds from the second
user the information that is personal to the first user,” as recited in claim 1
(emphases added). See App. Br. 8—11; Reply Br. 3^4. In particular,
Appellant contends with respect to Bill:
Messaging from other users, whether in the virtual environment,
or outside the virtual environment, cannot be considered
“personal” or “private” because both the receiver of the message
and the sender of the message can view the message.
Furthermore, the “location” of the user in the virtual environment
cannot be considered “personal” because other users in the
virtual environment can determine the location of the user; either
by viewing the avatar’s “location” in the virtual environment or
by viewing the avatar's “location” on their own map.
App. Br. 9-10. Appellant argues none of Fukuchi, Robinson, or Bouten,
teaches the italicized limitation. See App. Br. 8—11; Reply Br. 3^4.
Appellant has not persuaded us of error. It is well established that
during examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification and should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, but
without importing limitations from the specification. See In re Am. Acad, of
1 To the extent Appellant advances new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellant has waived such arguments. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
3
Appeal 2017-001144
Application 13/626,319
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations
omitted); SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875
(Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, Appellant does not contend the Specification
has assigned any special meaning to the terms in the disputed limitation.
Appellant’s argument about whether the cited references teach “private”
information is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, as Appellant
has not shown the term “personal” simply means “private.” Likewise,
Appellant’s argument about providing a seamless platform for users (App.
Br. 10) is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
In contrast, the Examiner correctly interprets the limitation
“information that is personal to the first user . . . withholds from the second
user the information that is personal to the first user” to encompass Bill’s
instant messaging between a first user and a third user, which is withheld
from a second user. See Final Act. 5—6; Ans. 5—6; Bill Figs. 2-4; cols. 2, 6,
8. The Examiner’s interpretation is consistent with the Specification, which
states:
The information that is personal to a user 320 can include
personal communications, personal calendar entries, and
personal task entries. Moreover, the personal information can be
generated through one or more communications modes, APIs,
channels, or facilities that are in communication with the VR
module 120, such as but not limited to email, voice messaging,
calendar information, reminders, tasks, instant messaging, text
messaging, and the like.
Spec. 8:20-25 (emphases added).
Appellant’s unsupported assertion that “[messaging from other users
. . . cannot be considered ‘personal’ or ‘private’ because both the receiver of
the message and the sender of the message can view the message” (App. Br.
4
Appeal 2017-001144
Application 13/626,319
9) is speculative, and contradicts the express statements of the Specification
above.
While not required, the Examiner cumulatively finds in Bill, “user’s
high-level topological map (comprising zoom level of the map, size of the
map, etc.) is personal to an individual user [. . . withholds from a second
user.]” Ans. 6; Bill Fig. 3. Appellant does not dispute that finding.2
II
Appellant argues with respect to the limitation “wherein the
information personal to the first user moves with the first user through the
virtual reality environment from a first virtual room to at least a second
virtual room,” the Examiner improperly utilizes the disclosure from the
Specification, but Appellant does not specify where and how. See App. Br.
11. Appellant argues Bouten does not teach that limitation. See App. Br.
10-11.
The Examiner responds that Appellant’s assertion is incorrect and
contradicts the record. See Ans. 8; see also Final Act. 5—6. Further, the
Examiner cites Robinson and Bill—not Bouten—for teaching the disputed
limitation. See Ans. 7; see also Final Act. 5—6. Appellant does not dispute
the Examiner’s responses.
Ill
2 Additionally and cumulatively, the Examiner finds each of Fukuchi,
Robinson teaches the italicized limitation. Such findings are unnecessary
because as discussed above, Bill teaches the italicized limitation.
5
Appeal 2017-001144
Application 13/626,319
Appellant generally argues “the Examiner failed to provide any detail
in exactly how the references could be combined in the manner suggested by
the Examiner,” but does not specify which details are missing. See App. Br.
11.
The Examiner responds that Appellant’s assertion is incorrect and the
Final Office Action provides the requisite details. See Ans. 8—9. Appellant
does not dispute the Examiner’s response.
Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and independent
claims 11 and 17 for similar reasons.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of corresponding dependent
claims 3—10, 12—16, and 18—21, as Appellant does not advance separate
substantive arguments about those claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3—21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6