Ex Parte Bastian

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 2, 2015

12420311 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/420,311 04/08/2009 Geannie M. Bastian 12071-001 2249 29391 7590 07/02/2015 BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS & MAIRE, P. A. 390 NORTH ORANGE AVENUE SUITE 2500 ORLANDO, FL 32801 EXAMINER SHIN, ANDREW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2612 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/02/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte GEANNIE M. BASTIAN ____________________ Appeal 2013-005748 Application 12/420,311 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JON M. JURGOVAN, and JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges. HORVATH, 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 rejection of claims 1–3, 9–14, and 17–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2013-005748 Application 12/420,311 2 SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The invention is directed to a method for facilitating seat selection at a performance venue by displaying virtual views of the performance space from a selected seat. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for facilitating seat selection for a performance venue having a performance space and a plurality of seats, the method comprising: generating a three-dimensional digital model of the performance venue; identifying a plurality of spatial coordinates corresponding to the plurality of seats within the digital model; generating a plurality of views of the performance space corresponding to the plurality of spatial coordinates; and selectively displaying the plurality of views to prospective spectators; wherein the plurality of spatial coordinates identified include, for each of the plurality of seats, a plurality of eye heights, said plurality of eye heights including an average adult height of an eye of a seated adult viewer and an average child height of an eye of a seated child viewer; and wherein the plurality of views of the performance space generated include, for each of the plurality of spatial coordinates, a static view of the performance space and a fly-in view between the corresponding seat and the performance space. REFERENCES Mei Imamura US 2005/0131658 A1 US 2006/0232605 A1 June 16, 2005 Oct. 19, 2006 Appeal 2013-005748 Application 12/420,311 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1–3, 9–14, and 17–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mei and Imamura. Ans. 3. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments the Examiner has erred. Because we agree with at least one of Appellant’s arguments, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 9–14, and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mei and Imamura. The Examiner finds Mei’s disclosure of semi-panoramic interactive views of a performance space from each seat in a performance venue teaches or suggests fly-in views between each seat and the performance space. Ans. 4 (citing Mei ¶ 108). Appellant argues the cited portion of Mei merely discloses “that a user can ‘pan around the view from prospective seats,’” and “that at each fixed seat location, a panoramic view is provided.” App. Br. 3. Appellant therefore contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by “ignor[ing] the claim language, which requires a fly-in view between the corresponding seat and the performance space.” Id. at 4. We agree with Appellant’s contention. The Specification discloses “a fly-in view can proceed between the performance space and [a] seat,” and includes “animated views of a progression to the corresponding seat.” Spec. ¶¶ 18, 28. Thus, a “fly-in view between a seat and the performance space,” as recited in claim 1, is an animated progression of views that either “zooms-in” on the performance space from the seat or “zooms-in” on the seat from the performance space. Appeal 2013-005748 Application 12/420,311 4 We agree with Appellant that Mei’s disclosure of panning the view of the performance space from a seat does not teach or suggest a “fly-in” view between the seat and performance space. We disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted Mei’s teaching of panning “the virtual camera from the leftmost side of the performance space . . . to the rightmost side of the performance space . . . to mean that the virtual camera at the leftmost side of the performance [space] would ‘fly’ to the rightmost side of the performance space.” Ans. 9. We therefore reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1–3, 9–14, and 17–20 for this reason. DECISION For the reasons indicated above, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1– 3, 9–14, and 17–20 is reversed. REVERSED ELD