Ex Parte Hamey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2015

12423593 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte BENJAMIN HAMEY, JEFFREY COTTER,
and NATHAN HAMEY
________________

Appeal 2012-007955
Application 12/423,593
1

Technology Center 2600
________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1–30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to building virtual worlds. Spec. 1. Claim 1
is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A system for generating a decentralized user-
owned virtual world, including:
a storage medium having an applications platform for
creating a decentralized user-owned virtual world, the
applications platform being configured to permit a user of the

1
According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Simmersion Holdings
Pty. Limited. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2012-007955
Application 12/423,593

2
storage medium to create the decentralized user-owned virtual
world resident at a respective user-owned location;
an input device adapted to permit the user to create
objects to populate the decentralized user-owned virtual world;
and
a processor coupled to said storage medium and said
input device, said processor being configured to operate a peer
to peer network between the user and another user, wherein the
another user is a user of another storage medium having the
applications platform being configured to permit the another
user to create another decentralized user-owned virtual world.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1–10, 15–20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) as being anticipated by Hamilton (US 2009/0235183
A1; Sept. 17, 2009). Ans. 5–15.
Claims 21, 27, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Hamilton. Ans. 15–17.
Claims 11–13 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hamilton and Mueller (US
2008/0004094 A1; Jan. 3, 2008). Ans. 17–19.
Claims 14 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hamilton and GEMS (WO 00/70557;
Nov. 23, 2000). Ans. 19–20.
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1–10 and 14–30 under 35 U.S.C. §§102(e) and 103(a)
The Examiner finds Hamilton discloses a virtual universe 12’, which
the Examiner maps to the claimed “decentralized user-owned virtual world”
as recited in claim 1. Ans. 5–6 and 20–30. Moreover, the Examiner finds
Hamilton discloses a peer to peer implementation between 12’ and 12’’,
Appeal 2012-007955
Application 12/423,593

3
which the Examiner maps to the claimed “peer-to-peer network,” as recited
in claim 1. Ans. 6 and 31–32.
Appellants contend Hamilton fails to disclose the claimed
“decentralized user-owned virtual world” because Hamilton’s virtual
universe 12’ initially docks to server 12 and the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim is construed to mean decentralized right from
creation. App. Br. 6–12; Reply Br. 2–5. Appellants contend Hamilton fails
to disclose the claimed “peer to peer network” because Hamilton’s virtual
universe 12’ initially docks to server 12. App. Br. 14–15. Moreover,
Appellants contend the presence of a central server 102 as disclosed in their
Specification is irrelevant to the meaning of “decentralized” because it is
unrelated to the functionality of the claimed “decentralized user-owned
virtual world.” Reply Br. 5–6. We disagree with Appellants.
Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are
given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one
of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special
definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with
reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We must be careful not to read a particular
embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim
language is broader than the embodiment. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
At the outset, Appellants’ argument that the claim should be
construed to mean “decentralized right from creation” (App. Br. 6–12; Reply
Br. 2–5) is not persuasive because claim 1 does not recite “decentralized
Appeal 2012-007955
Application 12/423,593

4
right from creation.” See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184; In re Self, 671
F.2d at 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Moreover, Appellants’ Specification discloses accessing a website
attached with central server 102 and downloading a template of a virtual
world, which becomes decentralized. Spec. 6; Ans. 24–26. Thus, page 6 of
Appellants’ Specification discloses a “user-owned virtual world” becomes
decentralized, meaning that the “user-owned virtual world” is initially
centralized. Id. Similar to page 6 of Appellants’ Specification and claim 1,
the cited portions of Hamilton relied upon by the Examiner disclose initially
associating a virtual universe 12’ (e.g., user-owned virtual world) with a
central server 12 and becoming detached (e.g., decentralized) from the
central server 12 (see Hamilton ¶¶ 32, 51, and 56; Fig. 6B; Ans. 5–6), which
discloses “decentralized user-owned virtual world,” as recited in claim 1.
As for Appellants’ argument that Hamilton fails to teach a “peer to
peer network” as recited in claim 1, the cited portions of Hamilton relied
upon by the Examiner disclose a peer to peer implementation between 12’
and 12’’ which discloses the claimed “peer-to-peer network” as recited in
claim 1. Ans. 6 and 31–32.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Because Appellants provided similar arguments against the rejections
of claims 2–10, 15–20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 29, these claims fall with claim 1
for same reasons as set forth above. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Dependent claims 14, 21, 24, 27, 28, and 30 depend from one of
independent claims 8 and 22. Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we
Appeal 2012-007955
Application 12/423,593

5
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 14, 21, 24, 27, 28, and
30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds Mueller teaches creative works and created
objects may be fixed or variable or altered due to changing parameters in the
game, which the Examiner maps to the claimed “adapting the content to
react to conditions of an environment” as recited in claim 11. Ans. 32–33.
Appellants contend Mueller fails to teach “adapting the content to react to
conditions of an environment” as recited in claim 11 because Mueller merely
teaches the amount of resources may increase or decrease. App. Br. 18–19.
We disagree with Appellants.
The cited portions of Mueller relied upon by the Examiner teach
creative works and created objects may be fixed or variable or altered due to
(e.g., react to) changing parameters (e.g., conditions) in the game (e.g.,
environment) (see Mueller ¶ 126; Ans. 32–33), which the Examiner finds,
and we agree, teaches the claimed “adapting the content to react to
conditions of an environment” as recited in claim 11.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Rejection of claims 12–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds Mueller teaches the speed of accomplishing or
changing the rate or trends of obtaining, creating, or modifying an object,
which the Examiner maps to the claims 12 and 13. Ans. 17–18. Appellants
contend Mueller fails to teach “velocity” as recited in claims 12 and 13
Appeal 2012-007955
Application 12/423,593

6
because Mueller merely teaches the amount of resources may increase or
decrease. App. Br. 18, 19. We disagree with Appellants.
Regarding claim 12, the cited portions of Mueller relied upon by the
Examiner teach the speed (e.g., velocity) of accomplishing obtaining,
creating, or modifying an object (e.g., related to content) (see Mueller ¶¶ 54,
70, 80; Ans. 17, 18), which the Examiner finds, and we agree, teaches the
claimed “wherein one of the conditions includes velocity related to the
content” as recited in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the cited portions of Mueller relied upon by the
Examiner teach the changing (e.g., variable) the rate (e.g., velocity) of
accomplishing obtaining, creating, or modifying an object (see Mueller ¶¶
54, 70, 80; Ans. 17, 18), which the Examiner finds, and we agree teaches the
claimed “wherein the velocity is variable” as recited in claim 13.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–30 under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102(e) and 103(a) is affirmed.
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

rvb