Ex Parte Sprunk

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 26, 2012

11447561 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ERIC SPRUNK
___________

Appeal 2011-000256
Application 11/447,561
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and
MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-000256
Application 11/447,561

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Eric Sprunk (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM. 1

THE INVENTION
This invention is a “data security system[] to provide access to a
virtual universe.” Spec. para., [0002].
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method of providing a virtual universe
associated with a product, comprising:
establishing a virtual universe of amenities,
wherein the virtual universe of amenities is
sponsored by the vendor of a product;
providing a security code as part of the sale
of the product, wherein the security code provides
access to a portion of the virtual universe of
amenities; and
permitting a user to access the portion of the
virtual universe of amenities when the security
code is authenticated at a virtual universe server.

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed May 26, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jun. 24,
2010).

Appeal 2011-000256
Application 11/447,561

3
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Black
Montgomery
US 6,307,956 B1
US 6,972,660 B1
Oct. 23, 2001
Dec. 6, 2005

The following rejection is before us for review:
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Black and Montgomery.

ISSUES
The first issue is whether the combination of Black and Montgomery
teaches a “virtual universe of amenities” when this limitation is given the
broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification.
The second issue is whether the combination of Black and
Montgomery teaches a “virtual universe server.”
The third issue is whether the combination of Black and Montgomery
teaches that “the virtual universe of amenities is a closed universe
exclusively opened to buyers of the product.”

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the findings of fact (FF), which appear in the analysis
below, are supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon,
Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general
evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office).
Appeal 2011-000256
Application 11/447,561

4
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-17, 19 and 20
The Appellant does not provide separate arguments for claims 1-3, 5-
12, 14-17, 19 and 20. See Br. 5-9. We select claim 1 as the representative
claim for this group, and the remaining claims 2, 3, 5-12, 14-17, 19 and 20
stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2010).
Turning to the first issue, we are not persuaded by the Appellant’s
argument (Br. 5-6) that the Examiner erred by unreasonably broadly
construing the claimed “virtual universe of amenities” as reading on Black’s
real hotel complex with amenities. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 6)
that this limitation can be reasonably broadly construed to encompass
Black’s hotel complex, given that the Specification states that “[t]he virtual
universe may also include a real experience universe, such as entertainment
environments, coliseums, theaters, etc.” (Spec. para. [0033]). Alternately,
Black’s hotel complex is controlled by a facility server that essentially
models the various electronically controlled portions of the facility as a
virtual universe of data objects corresponding to the real universe
counterparts. See Ans. 4.
Accordingly, for the reason discussed above, we are also not
persuaded by the Appellant’s argument (Br. 6-7) that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Black and Montgomery teaches a “virtual
universe server” since the prior art does not teach a “virtual universe.” See
Ans. 7.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Black and Montgomery is affirmed.

Appeal 2011-000256
Application 11/447,561

5
Claims 4, 13, and 18
We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument (Br. 7-8) that the
combination of Black and Montgomery does not teach that “the virtual
universe of amenities is a closed universe exclusively opened to buyers of
the product” as recited by claims 4, 13, and 18. In addition to agreeing with
the Examiner (Ans. 7), we note that Black describes “closed environments”
(Abstract, col. 1, l. 29, and col. 3, ll. 53-55) and “controlled environments”
(Col. 12, l. 55 – col. 13, l. 9) that have limited access.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 4, 13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over Black and Montgomery is affirmed.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

mls