Ex Parte Haslam

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 16, 2016

12954261 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/954,261 11/24/2010 DAVID HASLAM
77754 7590 06/20/2016
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC
c/o Patterson & Sheridan, LLP
24 Greenway Plaza
Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046-2472
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.
DISN/0048 (046453) 5061
EXAMINER
MYHR, JUSTIN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2016 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):
P AIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID HASLAM
Appeal2013-008397
Application 12/954,261 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
David Haslam ("Appellant") appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-27. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 11, 19, and 27 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claims 1 and 27 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter and are
reproduced below.
1 Appellant identifies Disney Enterprises, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2013-008397
Application 12/954,261
1. A computer-implemented method for customizing the
appearance of a digital object, the method comprising:
receiving a modification to a then current model
definition for the digital object;
upon determining the then current model definition
satisfies at least one exclude override rule, modifying a copy of
the then current model definition, as specified by the exclude
override rule, without modifying the then current model
definition; and
generating, by operation of a processor, a display of the
digital object from the modified copy of the then current model
definition.
27. A method for customizing an object in a video game
system, the method comprising:
receiving a first set of object attributes;
receiving a set of rules, wherein the rules are configured
to maintain a predefined object aesthetic;
receiving a set of wildcards, wherein the wildcards are
configured responsive to the rules to generate at least one object
customization combination that maintains the object aesthetic;
receiving a user's selection of object attributes for a
target object configuration; and
in response to the user selection, by operation of a
processor, revising the user selection with at least one of the
rules and one of the wildcards to derive a second set of object
attributes from the first set of object attributes, wherein the
second set of object attributes maintains the predefined object
aesthetic within a predefined threshold while approximating the
user target object configuration.
Appeal Br. 19, 23 (Claims App.).
Rejections
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
I. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Second Life Forums Archive - Hair (11/2008) (http://forums-
archive.secondlife.com/327 /a0/293322/1.html) ("Second Life") and
2
Appeal2013-008397
Application 12/954,261
IL Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Second Life and Dressing Room by W o WWiki
(Patch 1.7.0) (Sept. 22, 2005) (http://www.wowwiki.com/Dressing_room)
("WoW").
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I- Claim 27 as Anticipated by Second Life
The Examiner finds that Second Life discloses each and every
element of claim 27. Ans. 4--5. In particular, the Examiner finds that
Second Life discloses "receiving a set of rules, wherein the rules are
configured to maintain a predefined object aesthetic" and "receiving a set of
wildcards, wherein the wildcards are configured responsive to the rules to
generate at least one object customization combination that maintains the
object aesthetic" at "page 1; paragraphs [0003]-[0005] and page 2;
paragraphs [0001]-[0002] and [0004] see bald cap which overrides system
hair," and the Examiner further notes "see prim hair and other various hair
styles which allow a character to wear hair other than the system hair." Id.
at 5.
Appellant raises several arguments in response to this rejection,
including that Second Life does not disclose "receiving a set of rules,
wherein the rules are configured to maintain a predefined object aesthetic"
or "receiving a set of wildcards, wherein the wildcards are configured
responsive to the rules to generate at least one object customization
combination that maintains the object aesthetic." Appeal Br. 8 (emphases
added). Appellant asserts that the Examiner's finding relies on "a variety of
3
Appeal2013-008397
Application 12/954,261
speculative, and sometimes contradictory, discussion about how certain
features of Second Life may operate." Id. at 9.
Claim 27, as reproduced above, recites a method for customizing an
object in a video game system, including, inter alia, four "receiving" steps.
Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.). The Examiner's rejection identifies multiple
paragraphs as allegedly disclosing "receiving a set of rules" and "receiving a
set of wildcards," but the rejection does not identify specifically where in
these paragraphs these two "receiving" steps are disclosed. We have
reviewed these paragraphs and are unable to determine what, if anything, the
Examiner intended to rely upon as disclosing these steps of the claim.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 27.
Rejection II- Claims 1-26 as Obvious over Second Life and WoW
As shown above, independent claim 1 recites a computer-
implemented method for customizing the appearance of a digital object,
comprising "receiving a modification to a then current model definition for
the digital object." Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). Independent claim 11
recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing code,
which when executed, performs an operation for customizing the appearance
of a digit object, comprising "receiving a modification to a then current
model definition for the digital object." Id. at 20. Independent claim 19
recites a system, comprising a memory containing a program, which, when
executed, performs an operation for customizing the appearance of a digital
object, comprising "receiving a modification to a then current model
definition for the digital object." Id. at 22.
The Examiner relies upon Second Life as disclosing the above-recited
"receiving" element of each of the claims. Ans. 6-7. In particular, the
4
Appeal2013-008397
Application 12/954,261
Examiner relies upon the same paragraphs of Second Life, in the context of
this rejection, as the Examiner relied upon in Rejection I-page 1,
paragraphs 3-5, and page 2, paragraphs 1, 2, and 4. Id. As with Rejection I,
the Examiner does not identify with specificity where in these paragraphs
this "receiving" step is disclosed. We have reviewed these paragraphs and
are unable to determine what, if anything, the Examiner intended to rely
upon as disclosing this step of the claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 1-26.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-27.
REVERSED
5