Mark D. Wieczorek

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 24, 2020

14669744 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2020)

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.
14/669,744 03/26/2015 Mark D. Wieczorek 2051.156 1280
27774 7590 03/24/2020
MAYER & WILLIAMS PC
55 Madison Avenue
Suite 400
Morristown, NJ 07960
EXAMINER
HOANG, PETER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2020 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):
docket@mwpatentlaw.com
kwilliams@mwpatentlaw.com
mwolf@mwpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MARK D. WIECZOREK1
____________________

Appeal 2018-006901
Application 14/669,744
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before IRVIN E. BRANCH, STACEY G. WHITE, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–5, 7, 9–17, 19, and 20, which constitute all of
the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.2

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant(s)” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Mark
D. Wieczorek. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed March 26, 2015,
the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed June 1, 2017, the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.”) filed November 30, 2017, the Response to Notification of
Non-Compliant Appeal Brief (“Response”) filed January 22, 2018, the
Appeal 2018-006901
Application 14/669,744

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims recite systems and methods for providing a virtual reality
experience. Spec. Abstract. The systems (claims 1–5, 19, and 20) include
motorized pads and a means of communication between the set of motorized
pads and a computing environment that operates a virtual reality headset.
The motorized pads provide pressure to the user’s left or right foot as a
user’s avatar steps down on the virtual environment. The speed of providing
pressure and the force applied by the motorized pads to the user’s feet
depends on whether the avatar is walking or running.
The methods (claims 7 and 9–15) and computer-readable medium
(claim 16) provide a multiuser virtual reality experience that includes a page
tour of a social networking page displayed in a common environment
viewable with virtual reality headsets. Another method (claim 17) allows a
first user to record a page tour including audio data.
Claims 1, 7, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below
with emphasis added to indicate argued claim language:
1. A system for providing a virtual reality experience,
comprising:
a. a set of motorized pads for coupling to respective feet
of a user; and
b. a means of communication between the set of
motorized pads and a computing environment operating a
virtual reality headset;
c. such that the set of motorized pads are configured to
provide pressure on a user's feet as an avatar within a virtual
environment traverses the environment, and
d. wherein the set of motorized pads includes a left pad
and a right pad, corresponding to a user's left foot and right

Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed April 24, 2018, and the Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.”) filed June 25, 2018.
Appeal 2018-006901
Application 14/669,744

3

foot, and wherein the set of motorized pads are configured to
provide pressure on the user's left foot as an avatar within the
virtual environment steps down on the virtual environment with
their left foot, and wherein the set of motorized pads are
configured to provide pressure on the user's right foot as an
avatar within the virtual environment steps down on the virtual
environment with their right foot, wherein a speed of providing
pressure, and a force of pressure, varies depending on whether
the avatar is walking or running.
Response 3 (Claims Appendix).
Claim 7 is reproduced below with emphasis added to indicate argued
claim language:
7. A method of providing a multiuser virtual reality experience
including a page tour of a social networking page, comprising:
a. configuring a server to communicate with a first user
computing environment, the first user computing environment
coupled to a first virtual reality headset, the first user computing
environment configured to generate a first avatar corresponding
to a first user, the first avatar situated within a common
environment viewable in the first virtual reality headset; and
b. configuring a server to communicate with a second
user computing environment, the second user computing
environment coupled to a second virtual reality headset, the
second user computing environment configured to generate a
second avatar corresponding to a second user, the second avatar
situated within the common environment viewable in the
second virtual reality headset,
c. wherein the common environment includes a display of
visual depictions of entries from a social networking page, the
visual depictions including one or more links to other pages
corresponding to the entries, such that the first user is enabled
to provide a page tour to the second user.
Response 3–4 (Claims Appendix).
Claim 17 is reproduced below with emphasis added to indicate argued
claim language:
Appeal 2018-006901
Application 14/669,744

4

17. A method of providing a multiuser virtual reality experience
including a page tour of a social networking page, comprising:
a. configuring a server to communicate with a first user
computing environment, the first user computing environment
coupled to a first virtual reality headset, the first user computing
environment configured to generate a common environment
viewable in the first virtual reality headset; and
b. recording a page tour including audio data as the first
user describes the common environment,
c. wherein the common environment includes a display of
visual depictions of entries from a social networking page, the
visual depictions including one or more links to other pages
corresponding to the entries, such that the first user is enabled
to record a page tour.
Response 5 (Claims Appendix).

REJECTIONS
I. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for
indefiniteness. Final Act. 3.
II. Claims 1–5, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
based on Ranky (US 2011/0082009 A1, published April 7, 2011), Roston
(U.S. Patent No. 5,872,438, issued February 16, 1999), and Rosenberg (US
2006/0262120 A1, published November 23, 2006). Final Act. 4–12.
III. Claims 7, 10, 14, and 16 stand rejected under Miller
(US 2014/0306866 A1, published October 16, 2014) and Field
(US 2007/0186007 A1, published August 9, 2007). Final Act. 12–18.
IV. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Miller,
Field, and “Tip of the Week—Raiding in Everquest” (“EQ”) dated 7/3/2007.
Final Act. 18–19.
Appeal 2018-006901
Application 14/669,744

5

V. Claims 11–13, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
based on Miller, Field, and Serban (US 2014/0046829 A1, published
February 13, 2014). Final Act. 19–28.

OPINION
§ 112(b) Rejection
Section 112(b) provides that a specification shall conclude with one or
more claims distinctly claiming the subject matter regarded as the invention.
The Examiner finds that claim 9 should recite “the page tour” because “a
page tour” was mentioned in independent claim 7 from which claim 9
depends. Appellant argues the definite article “the” refers to the “first user”
recited earlier in the claim so the definite article is not needed for “a page
tour.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant then provides a new argument, without a
showing of good cause, that the definite article “the” refers to “the
configuring” earlier in the claim so that the definite article is not needed.
Reply Br. 3; see 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
“A page tour” renders claim 9 indefinite because it cannot be
ascertained whether this is the same page tour recited in claim 7, or a
different page tour introduced for the first time in claim 9. As claim 9 is
indefinite, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
§ 103 Rejections
A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the
differences between the claimed subject matter 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, 406
Appeal 2018-006901
Application 14/669,744

6

(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 ordinary skill in the art; and (4) where present, objective
evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
(1966).
Claims 1–5, 19, and 20
Claim 1 recites “wherein a speed of providing pressure, and a force of
pressure, varies depending on whether the avatar is walking or running.”
Response 3 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner acknowledges that Ranky
and Roston do not disclose this feature. Final Act. 8. Instead, the Examiner
relies on Rosenberg for this teaching. Final Act. 8–10.
Appellant argues none of the references discloses this feature. Appeal
Br. 8–10. Appellant argues that Rosenberg actually teaches the opposite of
what is claimed—that the user’s walking speed determines how fast the
avatar moves, not that the avatar walking/running determines the speed of
providing pressure. Id. at 9. Reviewing Rosenberg (¶ 34), we agree with
Appellant that the reference teaches a user’s feet action varies the speed of
the avatar’s running or walking. This does not teach what is claimed,
namely, that the speed or force of pressure of the foot pads varies depending
on whether the avatar is walking or running.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 1 or the
remaining claims which are dependent therefrom.
Claims 7, 10, 14, and 16
The Examiner makes the following findings for claim 7:
Appeal 2018-006901
Application 14/669,744

7

Miller in view of Fields teaches claim 7. It would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to
modify Miller’s interaction of a virtual environment between
multiple users to include a virtual environment wherein users
can both view and share social networking information and
interact with each other. An advantage of the modification is
that it achieves the predictable result of allowing for different
types of shared virtual environments including tour of a
personal page computer environment, as taught by Fields.
Final Act. 16.
Appellant argues that “the common shared environment of Miller is
entirely different to that of Field, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art
would not consider combining the two as the environments are so different.”
Appeal Br. 12. Appellant further argues “[w]hile the possibility of the
combination is indeed stated by the reasoning, no reason is given for the
combination itself, much less a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have combined the allegedly known elements in the fashion claimed.”
Reply Br. 11. In addition, Appellant argues “[t]here is only one type of
common environment stated in the claim, and it is not clear how “different
types” of shared virtual environments are disclosed or presented as an
advantage of either reference.” Id.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not adequately
explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Miller
and Field to arrive at the claimed invention. Field discloses a personal chat
area where members provide a tour of their page (¶ 152), and Miller
discloses a virtual world where the first user has a remote avatar and
interacts with a second user (¶ 33). We agree with Appellant’s assertion that
“Field . . . relates to a collaborative mobile social computing application.
However, Miller is entirely related to allowing one user to see another user's
Appeal 2018-006901
Application 14/669,744

8

point of view.” Appeal Br. 12. As described in Field, “[a]nother social
activity provided by the system is the user’s ‘personal pages.’” Field ¶ 150.
These pages may display images, provide links to music, or other personal
information designated by the user. Id. In order to “encourage personal
interaction, every personal page includes an option for adding a ‘living
room’—a personal chat area where members can receive visitors, provide a
tour of their page, and hang out with friends.” Id. ¶ 152. This is strikingly
different from Miller in which one user is local to a particular geographic
area and the system transmits at least a portion of that local area to a user
device for presentation to a second user, such that the second user may
experience the location of the other user. Miller Abstract. As Appellant
notes, Miller’s “‘virtual world’ does not appear to be actually ‘virtual’ for
the second user, as the second user accesses the ‘virtual world’ through a
second user device at the real geographic location.” Reply 9. Combining
these two references under the Examiner’s reasoning would result in
multiple different environments, but, as Appellant notes, “[t]here is no claim
element nor advantage related to ‘different types of shared virtual
environments.’” Reply Br. 11. Accordingly, based on the cited portions of
the references, we do not see how or why an artisan considering Miller and
Field would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Appellant also contends Miller fails to disclose two avatars situated in
a common environment. Appeal Br. 12 (citing Miller ¶ 171, Fig. 19).
Miller discloses two users may interact within a virtual world (¶ 33), but the
cited portions mention only a remote avatar of a first user. Accordingly, the
cited portions of the combined references fail to disclose two avatars of
Appeal 2018-006901
Application 14/669,744

9

respective users situated in a common virtual environment, as claimed.
Reply Br. 10.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 7 or the
remaining claims which are dependent therefrom.
Claim 9
The Examiner rejects claim 9 over the combination of Miller, Field,
and EQ. Final Act. 18–19. Claim 9 depends from claim 7 and thus,
incorporates all of its limitations. Response 4 (Claims Appendix). The
Examiner relies on EQ to teach configuring a server to cause a second avatar
to automatically follow the first avatar as the first avatar moves within the
common environment. Final Act. 18–19. This teaching does not cure the
deficiencies in the Examiner’s reason to combine Miller and Field noted
above with respect to claim 7, so we do not sustain this rejection of claim 9.
Claims 11–13, 15, and 17
The Examiner rejects claims 11–13, 15, and 17 over the combination
over Miller, Field, and Serban. Final Act. 19–24. Claims 11–13 and 15
depend from claim 7 and thus include all of its limitations. Response 4–5
(Claims Appendix). The Examiner relies on Serban to teach configuring a
server to allow the first user to provide audio commentary before, during, or
after, an indication. Final Act. 19–20. Because Serban does not cure the
deficiencies in the Examiner’s reason to combine Miller and Field noted
above with respect to claim 7, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 11–
13 and 15.
Claim 17 is similar to claim 7 in reciting a common environment that
includes a display of visual depictions of entries from a social networking
page in the context of providing a multiuser virtual reality experience.
Appeal 2018-006901
Application 14/669,744

10

Response 5 (Claims Appendix). Accordingly, for similar reasons as stated
with respect to claim 7 regarding the reason to combine Miller and Field, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 17. Specifically, the Examiner has not
explained adequately why an artisan would have modified Miller’s virtual
world in which first and second users interact and the first user has a remote
avatar (¶ 33), with Field’s page tour in a personal chat area (¶ 152).
Summary for Obviousness Rejections
For the reasons explained above, the § 103 rejections lack “some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Accordingly, we do not sustain the § 103
rejections of claims 1–5, 7, 9–17, 19, and 20.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 for indefiniteness under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
We reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1–5, 7, 9–17, 19, and
20 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
9 112(b) Indefiniteness 9
Appeal 2018-006901
Application 14/669,744

11

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 19–20

103

Ranky, Roston,
Rosenberg
1–5, 19–
20
7, 10, 14, 16 103 Miller, Field 7, 10, 14, 16
9 103 Miller, Field, EQ 9
11–13, 15, 17 103 Miller, Field, Serban 11–13, 15, 17

Overall
Outcome

9
1–5, 7,
10–17,
19, 20

Appeal 2018-006901
Application 14/669,744

12

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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