Ex Parte Miyamoto et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 24, 201512256864 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 12/256,864 10/23/2008 Kohtaroh Miyamoto JP920070088US1 6037 7590 04/24/2015 Anne Vachon Dougherty 3173 Cedar Road Yorktown Hts, NY 10598 EXAMINER BYCER, ERIC J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2173 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/24/2015 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 KOHTAROH MIYAMOTO and SHUICHI SHIMIZU ____________ Appeal 2012-008130 Application 12/256,864 1 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, ULRIKE W. JENKS, and ELIZABETH A. LaVIER, Administrative Patent Judges. LaVIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner finally rejected claims 1–13. Appellants seek reversal of the Examiner’s rejections, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM. BACKGROUND The Specification generally relates to controlling display images. (Spec. 1.) The Specification states that for a user operating an avatar in a virtual world, “it is difficult for each user to judge a relationship between 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation. (Br. 2.) Appeal 2012-008130 Application 12/256,864 2 himself/herself and a different user. A hobby, preference, personality or a communicable language, for example, is difficult to judge from a virtualized appearance. . . .” (Spec. 1.) To solve this problem, the Specification describes a system, method, and program for controlling display images. (See id. at 1–2.) Claims 1 and 2 are representative: 1. A system for controlling display images of objects, comprising: a storage device for storing attribute values of different displayed users respectively assigned a plurality of objects, the displayed objects each being displayed in a form modified according to an operation by the corresponding user; a calculator for calculating an index value indicating the intensity of a relationship between a first displayed object operated by a first user and a second displayed object operated by a second user, on the basis of the attribute values respectively corresponding to the first and second displayed objects; and a display device for displaying, on a screen of the first user, the second displayed object distinguishably in terms of the intensity of the relationship according to the calculated index value. 2. The system according to claim 1, wherein the displayed object is an avatar, the storage device stores an attribute value of an avatar of each of the users, in association with the avatar, and if an avatar of the second user is included within the visible range of an avatar of the first user, the display device displays, on a screen showing the visible range of the avatar of the first user, the avatar of the second user distinguishably in terms of the intensity of the relationship according to the calculated index value. (Br. 36–37 (Claims App.).) Appeal 2012-008130 Application 12/256,864 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal: 1. Claims 1, 2, 4–6, and 9–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Cheng. 2 (Ans. 5.) 2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cheng in view of Horvitz. 3 (Ans. 16.) 3. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cheng in view of Miyashita. 4 (Ans. 19.) DISCUSSION A. Rejection 1: Claims 1, 2, 4–6, and 9–13 At the outset, we observe that the Examiner provides a thorough discussion of how Cheng satisfies each of the limitations of claims 1, 2, 4–6, and 9–13. (See Ans. 5–15, 22–44.) After careful consideration of all the arguments presented by Appellants, we adopt the Examiner’s position, and offer the following by way of further explanation. Cheng generally describes a “priority-based operation of a virtual environment, the system having a priority component that provides priorities for avatars and non-avatar objects. . . .” (Cheng Abstract.) Cheng further teaches the priority component as responsive to selected parameters, which can include: “(i) objects’ relative positions, (ii) the direction, orientation and span of sense and focus spaces, (iii) participants’ profiles, (iv) predetermined parameters as set by developers and/or participants, (v) social parameters, 2 U.S. Patent No. US 6,329,986 B1, issued Dec. 11, 2001. 3 U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2002/0161862 A1, published Oct. 31, 2002. 4 U.S. Patent No. 6,057,856, issued May 2, 2000. Appeal 2012-008130 Application 12/256,864 4 (vi) economic models and (vii) combinations of these and other selected parameters.” (Id.) 1. Claims 1, 12, and 13 Appellants argue claims 1, 12, and 13 together. (See Br. 10–18.) We thus treat claim 1 as representative of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Appellants argue that Cheng fails to teach “storing attribute values of different users,” (Br. 13), “calculating an index value indicating an intensity of relationship between an object of a first user and an object of a second user based on the stored attribute values for each user,” (id. at 15), and “displaying, on a screen of the first user, the second displayed object distinguishably in terms of the intensity of the relationship according to the calculated index value,” (id. at 16). In essence, each of these arguments relies on the same alleged deficiency of Cheng, i.e. according to Appellants, Cheng establishes base priorities on the relative positioning of the first and second avatars or objects (distance and angle, Col. 10, lines 53-63), whereas the present invention uses predetermined attribute values for display objects of respective users to determine an intensity of a relationship between the users and to display the relationship accordingly. (Id. at 12.) We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments, as they read Cheng too narrowly. The Examiner correctly observes that although “Appellants focus on the illustrative example described by Cheng, which describe[s] Priority in terms of gaze cones and attention spaces,” Cheng’s disclosure is broader. (Ans. 24.) For example, Cheng’s user profiles include “priority component[s],” (Cheng col. 10, l. 6), which may be based on various parameters, including but not limited to a user’s “likes, dislikes, hobbies, Appeal 2012-008130 Application 12/256,864 5 and personalities.” (Ans. 24 (quoting Cheng col. 9, ll. 28–31).) In addition, Cheng describes creating a “similarity measure” in which users can “instruct the system to compute a measure of interest similarity between themselves and other objects resident in the applicable attention space. This similarity measure preferably is employed to alter base priority numbers.” (Id. at 26 (quoting Cheng, col. 22, ll. 47–56).) The parameters used to create the similarity measure can be “‘personal’ to a particular user.” (Id.) Further, the Examiner finds that Cheng discloses rendering avatars based on the priority component, both in terms of what to render and the rendering detail. (Id. at 28 (citing Cheng col. 10, ll. 8–10, 27–32).) As we are unconvinced by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Cheng, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 13. 2. Claim 2 Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites, inter alia, that “the displayed object is an avatar. . . .” (Claims App.) Appellants do not dispute that Cheng discloses display of avatars, but rather assert that Cheng fails to teach “the claim feature of the storage storing an attribute value of an avatar of each of the users in associat[ion] with the avatar,” (Br. 19), and “the claim feature whereby the display device displays, on a screen showing the visible range of the avatar of the first user, the avatar of the second user distinguishably in terms of the intensity of the relationship according to the calculated index value,” (Br. 20). These arguments largely recapitulate those which we have already found to be unpersuasive as to claim 1 regarding attribute and index values; further, we agree with the Examiner Appeal 2012-008130 Application 12/256,864 6 that Cheng teaches storing parameters associated with users, i.e., parameters, used to calculate the priority component. (See Ans. 30.) Appellants further characterize the Examiner’s position as relying on Cheng’s system as “capable of storing,” under the premise that “[c]learly an anticipation rejection cannot be based on what the Examiner concludes the memory is ‘capable of’.” (Br. 19.) First, as described above we agree with the Examiner that Cheng stores attribute values. Further, however, we note that the language regarding the “storage device” in claim 2 is functional, not structural (“the storage device stores an attribute value of an avatar of each of the users, in association with the avatar . . .” (Claims App.)). See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (to satisfy functional limitations in apparatus claim, the prior art apparatus must be capable of performing the claimed function). We thus affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2. 3. Claim 4 Claim 4 depends from claim 2, and further recites that “the attribute value represents an activity record of each avatar; and the calculator calculates the index value indicating that the relationship is stronger, in a case where the activity record of both the first avatar of the first user and the second avatar of the second user include a larger number of common activity records than a case where the activity record of both the first avatar and the second avatar include a smaller number of common activity records.” (Claims App.) First, Appellants again critique the Examiner’s reliance on what the Examiner finds Cheng to be “capable of,” (Br. 22), which we rejected above with respect to claim 2. Further, Appellants assert that Cheng fails to teach Appeal 2012-008130 Application 12/256,864 7 that “an attribute value represents an activity record of each avatar,” (id.), but offer no analysis in support of this position. As already discussed with respect to the “attribute value,” we agree with the Examiner that Cheng’s parameters satisfy this aspect of the claims. Further, as the Examiner notes, Cheng teaches storing records of activity in the virtual environment, (Ans. 32 (citing Cheng col. 3, l. 56–col.4, l. 8)), and that users’ actions are used to compute priority (id. at 33 (citing Cheng col. 19, ll. 35–51)). Accordingly, we find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive. Second, Appellants argue that Cheng’s comparison of interest lists between users fails to teach the “calculat[ing]” limitation of claim 4, and maintain that “the present invention automatically calculates index values indicating intensity of a relationship,” whereas “Cheng requires user input to the Set-priority component for modifying priorities.” (Br. 23.) This argument under-reads Cheng, because Cheng’s system also “continuously updat[es] the similarity measure based on the profile, which includes the complete history of actions” of a user. (Ans. 34 (citing Cheng cols. 25–26, specifically col. 26, ll. 1–24).) Further, we note that neither claim 4 nor the other claims recites “automatic” calculation of index values. Appellants fail to point out support in the Specification for reading claim 4 so narrowly, and we discern no basis for importing such a limitation. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4. 4. Claim 5 Appellants rely on the same arguments for claim 5 as for claim 4. (See Br. 23–24.) As we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4, we also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5. Appeal 2012-008130 Application 12/256,864 8 5. Claims 6, 9, and 10 Claims 6 and 9 depend from claim 2; claim 10 depends from claim 9. Appellants’ arguments for these claims retrace those made with respect to claim 1, i.e., that Cheng does not teach storing attribute values and/or that Cheng does not calculate an index value. (See Br. 25–26 (claim 6); id. at 26–27 (claim 9); id. at 28–29 (claim 10).) As we are unpersuaded by these arguments with respect to claim 1, we likewise are unpersuaded with respect to these claims. As such, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 9, and 10. B. Rejection 2: Claim 3 Claim 3 recites: The system according to claim 2, further comprising a search unit for accessing and searching the storage device, to find at least one communication means that the first and second users can use in common, wherein: the attribute value represents at least one communication means used by a corresponding avatar, and a score indicating a skill level of the avatar in using the communication means; and the calculator reads, from the storage device, the scores corresponding to each of the communication means, and then calculates the intensity of the relationship between the first and second avatars on the basis of the read scores. (Claims App.) The Examiner relies on Cheng as applied to claim 2, and also as disclosing “different methods of communication,” such that “participants can set a preferred method of communication with other participants” and wherein “priorities are used to provide communication in enhanced detail for those objects deemed important by the first user.” (Ans. 17 (citing Cheng Appeal 2012-008130 Application 12/256,864 9 col. 10, ll. 20–40; col. 23, ll. 46–51).) Further, the Examiner turns to Horvitz as teaching “a system for determining which one of a plurality of communication methods or systems is best suited to the present environment based on a set of attributes.” (Id. (citing Horvitz ¶ 10).) As with Rejection 1, we adopt the Examiner’s thorough findings and conclusions regarding Rejection 2 (see id. at 16–18, 44–47) in their entirety. Appellants present no additional arguments regarding Cheng (see Br. 29), but argue that Horvitz does not teach scores indicative of the skill level of a user in using a communication means as recited in claim 3 (Br. 31). In contrast, Appellants assert “[t]he present invention actually scores the users’ skills for transmitting and receiving information using a particular communications means (see: pages 20-21). It is the user-specific monitored scores that are used for selecting the preferred communication means for communications between the first and second users.” (Id.) We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We are unconvinced that the language of claim 3 supports the distinction Appellants draw between the prior art and the invention. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Cheng’s priority calculation “extends to automatically determining communication methods to use when communicating with other users.” (Ans. 45 (citing Cheng col. 10, ll. 20–23, 32–40).) We see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on the combination of Cheng and Horvitz (see id. at 47) to teach the limitations of claim 3, and affirm the rejection. C. Rejection 3: Claims 7 and 8 As to claims 7 and 8, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s further reliance on Miyashita, but rather recapitulate their arguments from claim 1 regarding the alleged failure of the cited art to teach a calculated index value Appeal 2012-008130 Application 12/256,864 10 determined from stored attribute values. (See Br. 32–34.) As with claim 1, we find these arguments unpersuasive as to claims 7 and 8, and see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Cheng and Miyashita in rejecting claims 7 and 8. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s final rejections of claims 1–13 are affirmed for the reasons of record. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED tc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation