Ex Parte Crowe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2018

12834166 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/834, 166 07/12/2010
92384 7590 08/31/2018
AT&T Legal Department - G&G
Attention: Patent Docketing
Room 2A-207
One AT&T Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Keith Aubrey Crowe
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.
2009-1436 (ATT 2087) 7979
EXAMINER
SITTNER, MATTHEW T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3682
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEITH AUBREY CROWE, JAMES PRATT,
and MARK ANDREW
Appeal2017-003543
Application 12/834, 166
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO,
and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 The real party in interest is AT&T Intellectual Property. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-003543
Application 12/834, 166
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for presenting advertising, the method
compnsmg:
monitoring on a processor, a response from a first avatar for a
first end to one of a plurality of advertising data types in one of
a plurality of contexts in a virtual world;
determining on the processor a preferred advertising data type
for the first avatar for the first end user in each of the plurality
of contexts;
determining on the processor, from the plurality of contexts, a
current context for the first avatar for the first end user;
determining a preferred data type for first end user in the
current context for the first end user's avatar;
presenting on a first end user device, a first personalized
advertisement having the preferred data type for the current
context in the first avatar's view of the virtual world;
determining a preferred data type of a second end user in the
current context for a second end user's avatar;
and
presenting, a second personalized advertisement in a second
avatar's view of the virtual world, wherein a second advertising
data type for the second personalized advertisement is the
second end user's preferred data type in the current context.
Appellants appeal the following rejection( s):
1. Claims 1-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Matsuda (US 6,981,220 B2, issued
Dec. 27, 2005) in view of Brignull et al. (US 8,271,330 B2,
issued Sept. 18, 2012); Rothschild et al. (US 8,527,345 B2,
2
Appeal2017-003543
Application 12/834, 166
issued Sept. 3, 2013); and Dedrick (US 5,710,884, issued
Jan. 20, 1998).2
2. Claim 16 is ejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Brignull et al.;
Rothschild et al.; Dedrick'; and Fitzpatrick (US 8,069,168,
issued Nov. 29, 2011).
ANALYSIS
In regard to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the
Appellants argue that the prior art does not disclose determining a preferred
advertising data type for the first avatar for the first end user in each of a
plurality of contexts in the virtual world as required by claim 1. We agree.
The Examiner relies on Rothschild, at column 8, line 54 to column 9,
line 44, for teaching presenting advertisements which can be presented in
one of a plurality of data types such as audio, video, text, etc. based on the
current context in the end user's avatar's view of the virtual world. Fin.
Act. 7. The Examiner also relies on Dedrick, column 5, lines 52 to 64, for
teaching tracking the user's reactions to electronic information in various
formats to determine a preferred format of the user.
The portion of Rothschild relied on by the Examiner discloses that the
advertisement can be selected based on the content and subject matter of the
personal communications or on the personal interests of the recipient.
2 The Examiner's statement of the rejection on page 4 of the Final Action
does not include claims 4 and 10. However the Examiner's discussion of the
rejection of these claims on page 11 indicates that these claims are also
rejected. Therefore, we will treat the absence of these claims in the
statement of the rejection to be an oversight.
3
Appeal2017-003543
Application 12/834, 166
Rothschild also teaches that the advertisement may take the form of various
data types including texts, images, video, or audio. Rothschild does not
disclose that the data types are determined based on the preferred data type
for the avatar in each of a plurality of contexts. Rothschild does disclose
that if the sender of the advertisement does not express a preference for the
advertisement to be included, the advertising application will default to that
which is the closest contextual match. However, the context referred to in
Rothschild is determined from the contributor's profile data which includes
demographic information, historical use information, the recipient's profile
data, geographic information, historical use information and message based
context information derived from the contents of the digital message itself.
(col. 15, 11. 49-58). By contrast, claim 1 recites that the context relates to
context in the virtual world. In this regard, Appellants' Specification
discloses that this context includes the physical terrain in which the avatar is
located, the player's present in the avatar group, and the current state (stage
level, activity, etc.) of the game played by the end user avatar in the virtual
world (Spec. 6-7). As such, it is clear from Appellants' Specification that a
different data type (audio, video, text, etc.) will be determined depending on
the location or situation of the avatar in the virtual world. This is not
disclosed by the portions of Rothschild relied on by the Examiner.
While we agree with the Examiner that Dedrick discloses tracking the
user's reactions to electronic information in various formats to determine a
preferred format of the user, this does not relate to a plurality of contexts in
the virtual world.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection as it is
directed to claim 1 and claims 2---6 dependent therefrom. We will also not
4
Appeal2017-003543
Application 12/834, 166
sustain this rejection as to the remaining claims subject to this rejection
because each of the remaining claims requires determining an advertising
data type based on the context of the avatar in the virtual world.
We will also not sustain the rejection of claim 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's§ 103 rejections.
ORDER
REVERSED
5