Ex Parte RileyDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 4, 201612135832 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/135,832 06/09/2008 94466 7590 02/08/2016 Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (Disney) on behalf of Disney Enterprises, Inc. 12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92130-2006 Sean Riley 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. 018322-0367744 4471 EXAMINER PHANTANA ANG KOOL, DAVID ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2175 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/08/2016 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): docketing@sheppardmullin.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SEAN RILEY Appeal2014-002486 1 Application 12/135,832 Technology Center 2100 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-3, and 5-21. Claim 4 has been canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appellant's Invention Appellant's invention is directed to a method and system for associating virtual spaces to physical analogues located in the real world 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Disney Enterprises, Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-002486 Application 12/135,832 thereby enabling client computing platforms to contemporaneously reflect in the virtual spaces current activities of associated users in corresponding real world physical analogues. Spec. if 2, Fig. 1. Representative Claim Independent claims 1 and 8 are representative, and read as follows: 1. A server configured to provide access to virtual spaces based on current location in the real world, the server comprising: one or more processors configured to execute computer program modules, the computer program modules comprising: a request module configured to receive requests from client computing platforms for access to virtual spaces; a location module configured to obtain, in real time or near real time, a current location in the real world of a first client computing platform associated with a first user; a space correlation module configured to, responsive to reception of a request from the first client computing platform for virtual space access, correlate the current location in the real world of the first client computing platform with one of a plurality of virtual spaces by comparing the current real world location of the first client computing platform with the real world locations of physical analogues that are associated with the different virtual spaces, wherein the virtual spaces are separate simulated spaces, and 2 Appeal2014-002486 Application 12/135,832 wherein the virtual spaces comprise a first virtual space and a second virtual space; and a server access module configured to provide access for the first client computing platform to the virtual space with which the current location of the first client computing platform has been correlated such that, responsive to the current location of the first client computing platform being correlated with the first virtual space, access to the first virtual space is provided for the first client computing platform by facilitating communication between the first client computing platform and a space server executing an instance of the first virtual space, wherein such communication enables an avatar associated with the first client computing platform to interact in the instance of the first client computing platform to interact in the instance of the first virtual space with avatars being controlled by other client computing platforms. 8. A sys~em configured to enable access to a virtual space, the system compnsmg: one or more processors configured to execute computer program modules, the computer program modules comprising: a request receipt module configured to receive a request from a client computing platform for access to a virtual space, wherein a virtual space is a simulated physical space that has a topography, expresses real-time interaction by the one or more users, and includes one 3 Appeal2014-002486 Application 12/135,832 or more objects positioned within the topography that are capable of experiencing locomotion within the topography; a client location module configured to obtain a current physical location of the client computing platform in the real world; a space correlation module configured to correlate the client computing platform with one of a plurality of virtual spaces, wherein the virtual spaces correspond to separate physical analogues in the real world such that the individual virtual spaces include therein virtual objects associated with the physical analogues to which the individual virtual spaces correspond, and wherein the correlation of the client computing platform with one of the plurality of virtual spaces is based on the current physical location of the client computing platform in relation to the physical locations of the physical analogues; and a server access module configured to generate a network location at which the client computing platform will be able to access a server hosting an instance of the virtual space correlated with the client computing platform by the space correlation module to receive view information from the server over a network such that the generated network location is dependent upon the correlated virtual space, wherein accessing the server at the network location enables the client computing platform to receive view information from the server over the network that describes a view of the hosted instance of the virtual space to be displayed to a user by the client computing platform. 4 Appeal2014-002486 Application 12/135,832 Pechatnikov et al. Esenther Prior Art Relied Upon US 2005/0033511 Al US 2009/0040186 Al Rejection on Appeal Feb. 10,2005 Feb. 12, 2009 Appellant requests review of the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, and 5-21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Pechatnikov and Esenther. ANALYSIS We consider Appellant's arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 7-18, and the Reply Brief, pages 4--8.2 Claims 1-3, and 5-7 Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues the proposed combination of Pechatnikov and Esenther does not render claim 1 unpatentable. App. Br. 7-12. In particular, Appellant argues that the proposed combination of references does not teach an avatar under the control of a user interacting in a virtual space, with avatars being controlled by other client computing platforms. Id. at 11. According to Appellant, the Examiner erred in finding Pechatnikov' s disclosure of points of interest 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 24, 2013), the Reply Brief (filed January 17, 2013) and the Answer (mailed November 22, 2013) for their respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). 5 Appeal2014-002486 Application 12/135,832 (POis) in buildings and maps stored on a server computer, teaches avatars being controlled by other client computing platforms. Id. (citing Pechatnikov if 103), Reply Br. 5 (citing Pechatnikov iii! 112-13). We agree with Appellant. As correctly argued by Appellant, and undisputed by the Examiner, avatars are graphical representations of users. Ans. 10-11. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that because the POis in maps and buildings disclosed in Pechatnikov do not represent users, they do not teach avatars. App. Br. 11. We further agree with Appellant that because the cited POis are stored on a server computing device, as opposed to a client computing device, the disclosed POis are not controlled by other client computing platforms. Id. Thus, we agree with Appellant the Examiner has not shown the other avatars being controlled by other client computing platforms. Because Appellant has shown at least one reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim, we need not reach Appellant's other arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2, 3, and 5-7, which also recite the disputed limitations. Claims 8-21 Appellant argues the combination of Pechatnikov and Esenther does not teach or suggest selecting a virtual space from a plurality of virtual spaces to thereby generate a specific network location at which the selected virtual space can be accessed based on the real world location of a user requesting access. App. Br. 12. According to Appellant, although Esenther discloses a user touching different locations on a touchscreen display of a 6 Appeal2014-002486 Application 12/135,832 client computing device to present different views of a map hosted at a server, Esenther does not teach the network locations at which the client request information from the server application. Id. at 15 (citing Esenther i-fi-f 12, 14, 22). Further, Appellant argues Pechatnikov's disclosure of pushing updated information to a user to transmit updated information to a GPS does not cure the noted deficiencies because the network address does not indicate where the user can obtain the updated information. Id. at 16 (citing Pechatnikov i-fi-f 107, 109). These arguments are not persuasive. Esenther' s disclosure of the user touching a location on the display of a client computing device to thereby cause the server to display a different view of an image, teaches or suggests the client computing device pulling requested view information from the server (i.e., at a specified network location). Esenther i-fi-121-24. Further, Pichatnikov's disclosure of the client computer polling a list of available servers (listed by IP address) to determine the address or network location of the fastest server for a particular request (Pichanitkov i1 209) would complement Esenther's teaching, thereby specifically identifying the network location associated a server containing requested information. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Esenther and Pichatnikov teaches the disputed limitations of claim 8. Regarding claims 9-21, Appellant reiterates substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 8, or does not provide separate patentability arguments; therefore, claims 9-21 fall with claim 8 for the foregoing reasons. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii). 7 Appeal2014-002486 Application 12/135,832 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 8-21, but reverse the rejection of claims 1-3, and 5-7, as set forth above. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation