Ex Parte Jones et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 19, 201511971666 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ANGELA RICHARDS JONES, FUYI LI, RUTHIE D. LYLE, VANDANA MALLEMPATI, and PAMELA A. NESBITT ____________________ Appeal 2012-007945 Application 11/971,666 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ULRIKE W. JENKS, SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, and CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges. KAMHOLZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–5, 7–11, 13–15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Saito (US 2004/0039583 A1, pub. Feb. 26, 2004). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2012-007945 Application 11/971,666 2 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter is directed to a system and method for attending a recorded event in a metaverse application. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer program product comprising a non- transitory computer useable storage medium to store a computer readable program that, when executed on a computer, causes the computer to perform operations comprising: record an event environment of a metaverse application, wherein the recorded event environment comprises a virtual object in a context of a multidimensional virtual scene; receive a request from a user for playback of the recorded event environment; display the playback of the recorded event environment to allow the user to observe the recorded event environment; and facilitate an interaction between at least two avatars within the recorded environment, wherein the interaction occurs during the playback of the recorded event environment. ANALYSIS The Examiner rejected claims 1–5, 7–11, 13–15, 17, 18, and 20 for anticipation by Saito. Ans. 4. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has failed to show that Saito discloses the facilitation of an interaction between two avatars within, and during playback of, a recorded event environment. See App. Br. 7–9. Saito discloses that a replay post may be played in an information space for an avatar (¶ 121), but Saito does not disclose that the avatar is within that replay post or that an interaction with another avatar is facilitated within the replay post during playback. The Examiner cites Fig. 16 as disclosing this feature and refers to element 156 as a “recorded network event environment” Appeal 2012-007945 Application 11/971,666 3 (Ans. 6) but provides no explanation to substantiate these assertions. The Examiner also asserts that elements 62a and 153 are “recorded environment[s]” and that paragraphs 47–49 describe a data file which allows presentation of a recorded environment to avatars for an interaction (Ans. 18) but again provides no explanation. We do not discern from our review of Saito any disclosure that avatars interact within, and during payback of, a recorded event environment. All of the rejected claims have this limitation; accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of all claims. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7–11, 13–15, 17, 18, and 20 is REVERSED. REVERSED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation